Every Pot Has a Cover : A Proven System for Finding, Keeping and Enhancing the Ideal Relationship 9780761842781, 9780761841135

Citation preview

Every Pot Has a Cover A Proven System for Finding, Keeping, and Enhancing the Ideal Relationship

Michael J. Salamon

UNIVERSITY PRESS OF AMERICA,® INC.

Lanham • Boulder • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK

Copyright © 2008 by University Press of America,® Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard Suite 200 Lanham, Maryland 20706 UPA Acquisitions Department (301) 459-3366 Estover Road Plymouth PL6 7PY United Kingdom All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America British Library Cataloging in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Control Number: 2008926996 ISBN-13: 978-0-7618-4113-5 (paperback : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-7618-4113-X (paperback : alk. paper) eISBN-13: 978-0-7618-4278-1 eISBN-10: 0-7618-4278-0

⬁ ™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48—1984

Contents

Acknowledgments

v

Introduction

vii

1

Friends and Countrymen

2

Personality: What Exactly Is It?

13

3

How We Choose a Relationship

28

4

I Love You, I Hate You, I Love Myself: Narcissists and Borderlines

40

Lean on Me, I Need Immediate Attention: Dependents and Histrionics

53

Understanding Yourself: Developing Your Own Personality Profile

66

7

Co-Dependency Myths

80

8

The Keys to a Good Relationship

91

9

Even in a Good Relationship You Need to Communicate

5 6

1

104

Selected Bibliography

119

Index

127

iii

Acknowledgments

It is impossible to conceive of a text as being written by just one person. Those who have done so know that writing is always a major undertaking, which requires the input of many, even if a single individual performs the actual task of writing. For this reason, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to several people. First, I would like to thank the professors who taught me to listen to people clearly and analytically so that I could truly hear and understand them. Drs.’ William Metlay, Lou Primavera and Bernard Gorman are just such individuals. They also taught me how to turn the information into a reliable and valid package that was measurable and honest. Anecdotes reveal trends and trends can be quantified. Writing is something I learned at a very young age. My Mother was an accomplished scribe who, all her life, donated that talent to charitable organizations. Dad encouraged it in her and in me. My wife Naomi and our children share a love for reading each other’s papers and other works. And, the bright and supremely competent Indra Rampersad-Sinanan, my right hand at work keeps me focused and productive. I would also like to thank Betsy Day and Gloria Rosenthal for their support and editorial skills. Most of all I would like to thank all those individuals who entrusted me with their care and most intimate secrets as well as those who agreed to participate in research for the purposes of this text. We all hope that this will benefit many.

v

Introduction

When I was very young I recall overhearing a story about a woman, recently married, who was having trouble in her marriage. As I remember it, the woman left home because she could no longer live with her new husband— someone she described as mean, cruel and explosively angry. She went to her parents’ house seeking their comfort, only to be told by her mother that she could not stay there. In addition, not only could she not stay there, but also she must go back to her husband and work it out, or else her parents would disown her! I was floored by the mother’s apparent indifference, or even callousness, to her daughter’s plight, but the story did not end there. When the mother was asked why she sent her daughter back, she responded, “Even in the best marriages there are fights. You have to learn to live with one another. But, I also know my own daughter! I’m sure she isn’t innocent in this.” Even as a child, the first part of the statement struck me as true. People, especially close relations, must learn to get along. The latter part of the mother’s statement—the cryptic remark about her daughter—however, struck me as exciting, a major insight. What did the mother know about her daughter that allowed her to be so firm? What was the lesson she was trying to give her daughter by forcing her back into a supposedly cruel situation? Certainly, there had to be a good reason to send her back to a bad husband. On the other hand, maybe he was not really a bad husband. Maybe he was not cruel. Maybe she, the daughter, was the one with the problem. If she had the problem, why would she blame her husband? Maybe they both had a problem and that is why her mother sent her back? They both had to work out their own problems, especially the problems that had affected both of them. This story, and my thoughts about it, fascinated me and stayed with me for many years. vii

viii

Introduction

Over time, I have heard several variations of the same story; some told by mothers, some by fathers, some about daughters, and some about sons. Early in my professional career, I wondered if perhaps there was a collective-unconscious version of this new-wife story where, as part of the rite of passage into marital bliss, the mother figure must put her daughter through a firm, definitive statement of separation. Even today, where it is increasingly likely for a woman to enter marriage after having lived away from her parents for awhile, perhaps all mothers would say to their daughters in one form or another, “You no longer belong in my house, you belong with your husband.” If indeed this were the case, did it play out in a plethora of ways and affect most, if not all young married women? Did women need their mothers to give them the push into marriage? If women needed to be pushed into marriage, then what aspect would a young husband play in the psychodrama of getting comfortable in the marital relationship? Surely, the husband was not totally, passive. He must be contributing something to the dynamic being played out. Two things occurred that helped me develop a better insight into what appeared to be a relatively common event. The first was simply more experience with marriage and marital counseling. By seeing more couples in a counseling setting, doing more research, spending more time trying to understand how married life, with its myriad dynamics and functions operates, I developed a better feel for the process of marriage. And, I got married. I learned that marriage is not like magnets; opposites do not always attract. I learned about the impact of having children and the joys and burdens of rearing them. I learned about childcare and the impact in-laws have, both positive and negative, on all aspects of married life. I learned how loss of a job and financial crises as well as sexual difficulties and other stressors do not necessarily make a marriage worse, but may actually enhance a marriage and strengthen spouses’ relationship if approached correctly. I also found that for a good marriage to remain so, a lot of effort and hard work was essential and required on both the wives and husbands part. The other converging insight is related to the concept and meaning of personality. Early in my academic career, I had several professors who made a strong case for the immutability of personality—that is, you are born with a personality and it follows you all your life. Others also taught me that personality is not a well-defined construct but more of a nebulous theoretical idea consisting of attitudes, traits, behaviors, and so forth. The seeming conflict did not confuse me so much as invite me to further explore this issue. And I did, from the perspective of satisfactions with one’s life. For over 20 years, I have researched the concept of quality of life, or one’s life-satisfaction. I have found that some individuals are able to enjoy and be

Introduction

ix

satisfied with their lives, others not, and it does not seem to make a difference whether the item that causes satisfaction is significant or not, a strong or a weak motivator. What matters most is an individual’s perception of it. If someone sees an activity as an annoying experience, it is. If someone else sees the same experience as pleasurable, it is. If someone enjoys social interaction and has it, they report that they are satisfied with their lives. If social interaction is not important to someone, no matter how much social activity they have, they will not be satisfied. How can the same thing be both pleasurable and annoying? Take the following example: Some people absolutely love going to the beach. They love spending the day in the waves, building sand castles, throwing a Frisbee, and tanning. They will spend hours at the beach because of the pleasure or satisfaction it brings them. Others resist going to the beach because they complain that the sand gets in everything—their beach clothes, hands, even their sandwiches. They perceive the beach as an annoyance and go out of their way to avoid it. While this example may seem petty to some, it serves as a very good point of departure, for if something so seemingly slight can be perceived so differently, think about how more important items can be perceived, alternately perceived, or even misperceived. How often do we hear of people misperceiving one another about the importance of one event or another? There are occasions when an event can be seen as a big problem and times when it is not even a slight issue. “I thought you said you wouldn’t mind visiting my sister; why are you so grumpy about it now that we’re almost there”? Says; the wife to her husband. He responds, “That’s true, I don’t mind visiting your sister. It’s her husband I can’t stand. I’ve told you that a million times. Just give me a few minutes and it will pass. I’ll get over it.” Is his comment meant to antagonize her? If it is then anger will take over. If, however, she does give him the time-out he requests then perhaps they will have a pleasant afternoon. If, however, she takes offense at his statement, seeing his comment as a challenge or a threat, tension builds and the stage is set for an escalation of conflict. In turn, happiness or satisfaction wanes and the relationship is threatened. This book is not so much about life satisfaction and personality, although we will look at some important aspects of what personality is made of; nor is it meant to be a how-to book on relationships and marriage. It is a book on the overlap between personality and all types of relationships. Special emphasis is placed on marriage, because in most societies marriage represents the paragon of all relationships. Many of the same rules of marriage apply to other types of relationships. If you are a failure at relationships, you will also fail at marriage. If you are a failure at marriage, you may find that you are having difficulty with all relationships. If you are in a good relationship, your

x

Introduction

level of satisfaction with life will increase. If your level of satisfaction in life is low, you are likely involved in unfulfilling relationships. As Grandmother used to say, “Every pot has a cover”—some personalities seem to go well with other personalities. To make this point, we will look at some cases of personality disorders—situations where personality style fits rigid, unhealthy patterns. In spite of the intensity and pathology of personality disorders, a strong relationship between people can form. The relationship may be a stormy one, but there are times that the partners seem very right for each other, and even thrive on their difficulties. We will also explore in this book some of the critical variables that contribute to our choices of the people with whom we form a relationship. Finally, we will explore ways to keep our relationships going. Marriage is one type of relationship, but there are many others. That is why, in this book we will initially also look at friendships. This approach will allow us to explore ourselves in a broader context, examining our needs for other human contact and how we fulfill those needs or how they may go lacking. We live in a society that is increasingly less socially interactive. Friends are now being made, via the Internet and chat rooms. Friendster.com, Facebook.com and Myspace.com are among the quickest growing interactive sites for developing relationships. However, these relationships are hidden behind the façade of a screen name and how one chooses to present themselves without real evaluation. Thus, when a person comes out from behind the screen it is harder to know just what to expect and there is a resulting shyness to the exchange. People hold back more, not just from others, but from themselves as well. We have to find a way to be more open and aware of who we are and what we need and how to form the most important relationship most of us will ever have. Much has been written recently on the genetic differences between males and females. The Mars, Venus concept is often used to explain differences between the sexes. We are indeed “from different planets.” I have however, found that despite our planetary differences we are compelled to live on the same earth and interact within the same parameters of interpersonal and social exchange. Therefore, I often recommend individuals entering marital counseling to read the materials that explore our differences. These readings help develop insight into our differing makeup. Those who read these texts gain understanding by using the approaches the authors specify. But, some individuals are better with some types of exchange rather than others, and this is based on the personality of the individuals involved. What makes a relationship work is usually little more than those attributes we will discuss in this book—those various traits referred to as “personality.”

Introduction

xi

Recently a physician who refers patients to me called. He humorously related that one of his female patients had called to ask him to recommend someone to help her with her marriage and he gave her my name. She told him she could not see me because I had told her, 13 years earlier, that she was going to have problems in her marriage if she wedded the person she ultimately did. I do not have a crystal ball, yet I didn’t predict this outcome based on some random experience. As the author of the Life Satisfaction Scale and the Senior Author of the Life Satisfaction in the Elderly Scale, I have many years of both research and clinical experience dealing with how people see themselves and others. Life Satisfaction is often a surrogate measure of personality and people who see themselves and the world one way gravitate to others who see the world in a similar fashion. Most texts on this topic generally overlook this important component of relationships. I believe that this book is one of the first of its kind to emphasize how true underlying bonds are formed between people. Using a research technique I have developed over the years in clinical practice and included here as Chapter 6, you will find a questionnaire that helps determine how alike personalities truly are. This book is not a book of many secrets. Increasingly it is becoming clear that our core personalities define who we are and how we live our lives. The goal of this book is to apply that knowledge to a major aspect of our lives. It allows us to come out from behind the screen to understand what our personalities are and how to determine if the differences between us are enough to separate us or actually bring us together. I do know one secret of successful relationships: If I like your personality, and you like mine, we will get along famously. This text is written to be easily accessible by all. It is not meant to be, long and cumbersome nor technical. This is the type of book that can be widely recommended for all age groups who seek insight into their own personalities and relationships. Let us take a look at how personalities are attracted to one another.

And when two souls that are destined to be together, find each other, their streams of light flow together and a single, brighter light goes forth from this united being. —Baal Shem Tov.

Chapter One

Friends and Countrymen

The core of relationships and social interactions begin in childhood. At first we mimic what we see others doing to form and maintain relationships and then we find our own types of relationships. The ones we are most comfortable with. A well-meaning mother brought her sixteen-year-old son, Jason, to me for an evaluation. “He’s too quiet. He is very withdrawn and when I ask him to do something, he is very slow to respond. Sometimes I have to ask him to do things two or three times before he moves.” I indicated to the mother that what she had described up to that point sounded almost too normal for a teenager and it was anything but indicative of a serious problem. “There’s more” she assured me. “The friends he had when he was younger he hardly sees anymore. And when they call, he doesn’t want to talk with them. When I force him to take the call he is rude to the caller. I told him that he can be difficult with me; I’m his mother, and I’ll keep coming back—no matter how poorly he behaves. But others won’t. There will come a point when all of the people who call him will get fed up and won’t call anymore. At that point he’ll be left with no friends.” She seemed to have a very valid point. Given that in every other aspect of Jason’s life he was doing well, it made sense to pursue this issue of friendship with him. Just to make sure, I asked Jason the standard questions: “How are you doing in school?” “No problems. Last report card average was 93. My lowest grade was an 85 in gym.” “Your teachers like you?” “All but my gym teacher. He thinks I could play better if I tried harder.” I asked about smoking, alcohol, and drug use. He denied it all and even looked at me quizzically as if I was off base for asking. He did not have a girlfriend, but 1

2

Chapter One

had several friends who were girls, and was not yet sexually active. “I want to wait until I’m a little older,” he said sagaciously. Having dealt with the obvious issues I began pursuing the reason Jason’s mother had brought him to speak with me. “Jason, your mother says you turn your friends away.” I didn’t have to say more. Jason began a lengthy soliloquy of the friends his mother was referring to. “First off, there are only four guys. They were never really my friends. I guess maybe they were when I was real young, but you don’t need brains to play in a sandbox. Three of these guys have no brains and one of them is making sure he never will.” Jason went on to describe how the friends his mother alluded to were the children of her friends. One of them was a daily drug user. Two of them had no interest in school and were always calling him when he wanted to do his homework. Still another was “nice enough” but they had different interests. Jason liked music and the other boy was heavily involved in sports. After he completed his presentation to me, I was convinced that Jason had good reason to act the way he had. Jason was a teenager and would someday learn diplomacy, so I expected his behavior to be a little abrupt, even intolerant. I invited Jason’s mother in, and with Jason’s permission, told her what Jason had said to me. She listened intently and commented that she understood. Nevertheless, she still felt that Jason could have some contact with these friends. “Jason doesn’t have to be close friends with them, but he can at least be friendly.” I could not disagree with that view and I expressed that, but she made an additional comment that sent the discussion in a new direction. “The parents of these children are my friends. I don’t want them to be insulted.” Jason reacted immediately. “You see. It’s just what I said. She wants me to be friends with them for her own sake.” As Jason’s mother’s comment and his response indicates, there are indeed different types and levels of friendship, and there are many reasons we choose to make and keep friends. Sociologists refer to the connections that bind us with others as being based upon “balanced reciprocity.” We reciprocally help, nurture, humor, talk, or just play with each other. To the degree that the giveand-take is balanced, we have a good relationship. In lay terms, “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours,” is at the foundation of all relationships. The return on a relationship investment may not be immediate; nevertheless, if we trust someone to reciprocate when we do a favor for him or her, it’s like having money in a bank account. We trust that if we need a favor in return we will not even have to request it. The favor will be made available because of the understanding we have developed. Such is the sign of a balanced, healthy relationship, or as Jason said, “I like him because he likes me, not because my mother does.” Jason’s mother wanted him to be friends because of her rela-

Friends and Countrymen

3

tionships with the other children’s parents. She felt obligated to them and wanted to reciprocate, using Jason. Jason felt that he could not be a party to that. There was no reciprocity in it for him. There are myriad levels of friendships and relationships that we all sustain. These interpersonal exchanges or relationships are called upon consciously as well as unconsciously, and we are able to categorize the use of the exchange without even paying conscious attention to it. To make this unconscious process clearer, as children, our parents took care of us; as adults, when our parents became older and frailer, role reversal took place and we cared for our parents. This is but one example of balanced reciprocity in a relationship. Similar reciprocity occurs in relationships that are not with blood relatives. Tom, a 26-year-old attorney, was seeking therapy to help him overcome what he expressed as a high degree of shyness. After just a few sessions, it became clear that his shy demeanor, or his introverted personality, was only a small part of the problem. The bigger component was his fear that he would act awkwardly and be punished for it. When Tom was a youngster, his father was extremely critical of him. “I never liked sports; my father did. When I tried to speak to him about the things that were important to me, he made fun of me. My friends weren’t the sports jocks, so he made fun of them, too. It was just easier to get into my books and escape into television.” I pointed out to this young man that he probably had the skills to develop good relationships with others. What was holding him back was the fear of rejection—his father was no longer a direct factor but had imprinted the fear in him. At this point, according to Tom, his father was very proud of both his academic and career successes. Tom’s fear of being criticized by being made fun of by his father was just a holdover from his childhood and needed to be expunged. I also told Tom what a 12-year-old once said to me when I asked him how he was able to have so many people he called close friends. “Friends become friends because we talk more.” The key point of the statement is that making the investment in spending more time with someone and showing him or her that this effort will be enjoyable and beneficial for both is what counts. If you give, you will receive; reciprocity will develop, a relationship will form. Tom tried, and with a lot of self-encouragement was just within a few weeks of feeling more comfortable speaking with several people. At work, he went to lunch with co-workers and began calling some former acquaintances from college. He spoke more with the people on the bus he took to and from work. He was a lot brighter and happier emotionally and felt as if his investment was already showing a quick return. People were approaching and calling him back. Tom was developing reciprocal relationships. He felt that he was becoming part of a variety of different types of relationships. We will return to the concept of balanced reciprocity in Chapter Eight.

4

Chapter One

FRIENDSHIPS For Tom, as for all of us, friendships develop in a many different ways: through casual meetings on line at the supermarket checkout, in school, or in a gym or book club we choose to join. More important than where or how friendships begin is the fact that there are different types of friendships that we experience. Somehow, we manage to form relationships on a variety of levels. While there are many types of friendships’ it is helpful to conceptualize them as forming a hierarchy of three basic types. At the bottom of the pyramid (Figure 1.1) are those people you know in passing or have passing or superficial, relationships with; those individuals are best referred to as acquaintances. The middle level of this hierarchy consists of individuals with whom you feel closer, with whom you share more and, in general, feel good to be around. They are your friends. You like going to the movies or bowling with them, and they are fun to be with at parties. At the highest level are those referred to as “close friends.” These are the people, you confide in the most, you feel that they understood you and you understood them the best. The distinctions among the three categories are easy to explain and to understand. Taking into account that there can be and often is shifting between the categories, especially between the two lower categories of Friends and Acquaintances makes the definitions of who fits where a little more complex. Despite that, the general paradigm provides a good model for relationships that go beyond blood and family. And, if you view the distinctions between friendships as forming a continuum rather than discrete steps, the overall concept provides a clearer understanding of relationships.

Figure 1.1.

The Hierarchy of Friendships.

Friends and Countrymen

5

Acquaintances consist of many people. Your barber or hairdresser can be an acquaintance, as can the checkout person at the local supermarket. The people you meet on the way to and from work and even some of those with whom you work fit into this category. There is not much beyond a passing exchange of pleasantries and general concern, with the many individuals with whom you have an acquaintanceship. You are probably on a first-name basis with these people, but not necessarily so. You may even know about their children or grandchildren, and they of yours. But, you would never think to call on them in an emergency. You would not even think of calling on them unless they happened to be in the immediate vicinity in a time of crisis. If they were there, you would feel more comfortable dealing with them than dealing with strangers. They are not exactly strangers; you may even feel some closeness with them, but situations and, as we will see, certain attributes of our personality and theirs preclude the development of a stronger, deeper bond with those who fit the category of acquaintances. Some acquaintances become friends over a period of time, simply by virtue of ongoing contact that is increasingly warm and reciprocal. Those with whom you have been friends may slip into a relationship where you begin to feel distancing occur and thereby develop the equivalent of acquaintanceship despite having once been friends. The definition of the category I refer to here, as “friends” is perhaps the broadest level of relationship. While acquaintances include many more people, a friend includes many different types of relationships. When a child says, “He’s a friend of mine,” the implication is completely different than an adult saying the same thing. Yet both refer to a concept of a relationship with a stronger bond and a more significant give-and-take than would be found in a passing acquaintance. One would anticipate that if you call someone a friend you are strongly suggesting that you have a comfort with the person and can rely on one another for certain exchanges of warmth, feeling, emotion, or even commerce. Hearing a child say, “He’s my friend,” causes us to immediately, conjure up pictures of children playing together and, for the most part, having a truly enjoyable time. As adults, the same phrase can suggest myriad other activities. A salesperson may call a buyer a friend not simply because she is very generous when he makes his sales calls; the generosity goes beyond how much she orders from him. She may make suggestions on improving the items’ marketability and, in turn, he may truly be interested in her success. In other situations, we may call neighbors “friends” because we care about them and they care about us. There is, of course, reciprocity here, but there is the additional sense of comfort in being around someone you are comfortable with which contributes to the feeling of friendship. Without a sense of comfort,

6

Chapter One

it would be impossible to call someone a friend, regardless of age. As a patient once said to me, “Friends are people I break bread with. If I am not comfortable sitting at a table enjoying our time together, then we aren’t friends.” The comfort comes primarily from having similar goals or ideals. It also comes from having personalities that are comfortable with one another. I was interviewing some World War II veterans just prior to a 50th reunion they had scheduled. These men had fought together in Europe during the war for more than a year, and had met once a year since having been discharged from the service. For the most part, they had little in common. They had different religious and ethnic backgrounds. Some worked as laborers, some in white-collar jobs. Some came from small rural towns, some from large urban centers. Had it not been for the war these men would probably never have met. Given their experiences despite their different backgrounds, they became friends and remained friends. When I inquired further, I was told that while about 20 always met, there were several who chose never to take part. I asked about personality, and to a man they all said, “They were just different, quieter, reserved, withdrawn,” and so forth. Those who tended toward greater extroversion continued the bond. Those who were introverted did not. Similar friendships begin when teenagers go off to college. There are those who would argue, and rightfully so, that college students tend to isolate themselves socially according to ethnic groups. The college experience is also a time, however, when close friendships can begin, and these friendships can last a lifetime. In a college environment, similar goals and a sharing of reciprocity continue to create the friendship bond. Friends are people we like being with, sharing with and generally having fun with. We may meet them in accounting class and finish our majors together. We also may find that we enjoy the same hobbies. We share things and that keeps us bound together in a friendship. The level of friendship can stay the same or it may go on to another level. “Close friends” is different from the other two categories of the Hierarchy in that it is the most limited category in this model. The Close Friend category is limited in the sense that if you have two or three truly close friends in your entire lifetime you are lucky. Close friends are those individuals with whom you are most comfortable not just doing activities with, but sharing feelings with. The comfort level in this category seems to come primarily from personality attributes. There seems to be a blending or sense of seamlessness when you are with your closest friends. Someone once described the feeling as “You aren’t sure where your skin ends and theirs’ begins.” You have the same thoughts. Your feelings are similar. Your sense of connectedness seems easier. They seem to call you just when you are thinking of calling them. You speak regularly, but if you are separated in time or by physical

Friends and Countrymen

7

distance, when you meet again it is as if there had been no break at all. Childhood friendships sometimes last a lifetime but they are not always those that become the closest of friends beyond childhood. The closest friendships usually begin to develop during the late teenage years and the early adult years. It is during this time that we begin to understand ourselves and expand our social environment beyond the primary family. In short, it is the time that we grow into our personality. While we have always had our personality, we begin to understand ourselves better, if unconsciously, and become more comfortable with who we are and how we behave. Once we develop a comfort level within ourselves, for ourselves, we can begin to develop a greater sense of comfort with others.

DEVELOPING FRIENDSHIPS I went to buy a suit the other day. It was an enlightening experience. I went to a men’s store where I had purchased many items over the years. One salesman in particular, Ray, recalls my name, my clothing size, and my taste. I feel comfortable when he says to me, “I put something away just for you.” He clearly could not have, for I never call in advance, nor am I a seasonal shopper. Ray could not even know what I come into the store to purchase. I shop when I feel the need to, and I can show up at the store at any time. Still, it is a game we like to play with each other. On the few occasions, I bumped into Ray outside of the store he greeted me by name and asked about my family. On this most recent occasion, Ray was not at work. Another salesman approached me. It felt different, false. It felt wrong. He was not a friend, but he took liberties and tried too hard to act as a friend. Salesmen are trained to sell themselves, and salesmen know that the best way to sell yourself is manipulating relationship reality and trying to act friendlier. I have known Ray for almost 15 years and, in the context in which I know him, he is more than just a salesman. Those who wish to assist me in a store are just salespeople. It takes a while for them to become acquaintances or friends. Why would I consider one salesman more than just an acquaintance and another not? The most obvious answer is length of time. How long we have known each other is an important factor. There are, of course, additional variables all related to aspects of who we both are. To understand these factors requires that we take a brief look at how friendships happen developmentally; that is, how they develop over time. As young children, our sense of self is bound up with that of our parents. We look for the approval of those who protect and teach us. Our environment is restricted and so are our friends. Our parents and teachers guide us in our

8

Chapter One

budding friendships. Perhaps the two most important aspects of social bonding are the guidance of adults and the restrictions of our environment. In essence, young children are informally told or as in Jason’s case strongly urged to choose whom to make friends with. As a result, early-childhood friendships do not always last, for good and obvious reasons. Peer groups expand significantly, as we grow into adolescence. Especially in our society, with increased mobility and larger schools, teenagers have many more options open to them. Perhaps the most exciting option is the availability of new peers with whom to form friendships. In a high school setting with the broadened availability of so many people to choose as friends, choices are made for a wide variety of reasons. Often a choice is made to compensate for what the child feels he or she may not be getting at home. The emphasis is on relationships that are free of stress and provide a high level of comfort. Friendships tend to form based on levels of maturation, behavior, dress, and academic achievement. The risk-takers go with the risk-takers, the good students with the good students, the “posers” or those who try to affect an attitude of haughtiness, with the “posers,” and so forth. Despite parents’ objections, children will befriend those with whom they feel closest, and not those whom their parents choose for them. As Jason said at the beginning of the chapter, “They were never really my friends. My friends now are the guys I choose, who I like being with and who like being with me.” During their late teens and early twenties, people are tormented by the period that Erik Erikson, a personality theorist, referred to as the stage of identity. Erikson was one of the first psychologists to look at the entire life cycle and delineate seven stages or “crises,” as he referred to them. Each stage reflects another step in the unfolding sequence of growth across the life span. One of the primary tasks of the identity stage is the formation of an identity of self that will carry over into the rest of life. Interestingly, Erikson pointed out that during this period, rebelliousness often seems the norm. Teenagers will commit themselves to rigid ideas that lie on the fringes of social acceptance, only to reject the same positions a few years later. The experimentation with ideas and social norms that takes place in the identity phase of adolescent development helps us define, who we ultimately choose to be and who, ultimately, will be our friends and close friends. In this phase, we tend to focus in more deliberately on our future selves. Perhaps there is also a genetic component to this process. Some people are sure of their identities early on. Others take on the identity of a parent or other role model—a teacher or religious figure. Still others defer the process of developing an identity over an extended period of time. In general, this stage can last several years, into early adulthood.

Friends and Countrymen

9

The stage that follows identity, according to Erikson’s scheme, is referred to as intimacy. This is the first truly adult stage and is an understandable follow-up to identity. Once you have begun to identify who you are and want to be, then you can find someone with whom to become truly intimate. The concept of intimacy does not simply refer to a selfless devotion to another individual. Being intimate requires not only selfless devotion, but also the ability to maintain the sense of identity achieved by both partners and the ability to share these overlapping identities. In the next chapter, we will explore this idea further from a marital perspective. From the view of friendships, though, there is one point worth making here. I once had a professor who insisted that the one sure sign of a close, solid friendship was the ability to tolerate conflict. After all, you can’t always be happy with yourself yet you learn to live with yourself and work to overcome your shortcomings. If you have developed the ability to be comfortable with your own identity, your own self, then you have the ability to be that way with others. How does this mesh with my experience with Ray, the salesman, or with some of those I still call friends from my teenage years? Here the point is most clear; those others are acquaintances and friends. My closest friends, my intimates, are those I share an identity with. And, the one you want to be closest with should be your spouse.

MAINTAINING FRIENDSHIPS The Oxford English Dictionary defines a friend as “one joined to another in mutual benevolence and intimacy.” As we have seen, intimacy, is most likely reserved for our closest friends, and as we have discussed, balanced reciprocity or mutual benevolence is important for all relationships. What is this mutuality dependent upon? The most obvious response is the ability to call on someone in a time of need. Another common response is that we tend to be with people who make us feel good or happy. People who reflect ourselves back to us in a positive way. Friends are also those people we enjoy playing tennis with, enjoy trying new restaurants with or like traveling with. These are individuals for whom we have personal preferences and who enjoy similar activities. Friendship also requires enjoying these activities and preferences over an extended period of time. The greater the amount of pleasant time you spend with someone the more likely a friendship will develop. I did a review of some of the adjectives used to describe and define friendships, looking through several texts on the topic and asking a number of people to list the factors they thought made up a friendship. I was careful to make it clear that I was looking for a definition of friendship in the broadest sense.

10

Chapter One

Six items came up repeatedly. The one most frequently mentioned was emotional support. This item was referred to by several different words or phrases, including empathy, and even love. Two concepts were tied for second most frequent in my limited survey of what made up a friendship: loyalty and trustworthiness. These related concepts refer to a sense of security within the relationship that allows the friends to feel a true level of comfort with each other. The remaining three items that I found in the survey were a sharing of advice, a sense of thoughtfulness, and a sense of appreciation. If these six items form the basic criteria for the continuity of a successful friendship then I can further explain my relationship with Ray, the salesman. Ray is more than an acquaintance. He is loyal, gives good advice and is probably trustworthy. He is loyal in the sense that he is there for me and acknowledges me even beyond the confines of the store. His advice is good because his clothing recommendations are the advice I seek. He is trustworthy within the confines of the trust I seek in this relationship. I trust that he will not knowingly sell me an item that is of low quality. He will not let me purchase an item that does not look good on me and, I know him for many years. Ray certainly is not a close friend and not fully in the category of a friend. Still, he has characteristics that take him beyond being simply an acquaintance. If it happened that Ray were to sell me a suit that did not wear well, I would likely forgive him. If this were to take place more than once, I would become less likely to shop at that particular store. My relationship with him would change and he would become less of a friend and more of an acquaintance. This process is similar to what transpires as we grow from the stage of identity to intimacy. As we get to better know our own needs and identify ourselves, we get to know other people better and can begin to develop intimate relationships. Teenagers unconsciously ask themselves with whom they are most comfortable. This questioning process belies the actual desire to be around certain individuals or groups perceived as “cool,” “in,” or the group to “hang out” with. Yet many teenagers who want to be accepted by the most popular groups are uncomfortable when they are around them. Very frequently, I hear teenagers who are most comfortable with their identity saying things like “she used to be my friend but now she is just too cool for me.” The cynicism is evident and predicated upon a dismissal of the friend because the two are moving apart, and they are moving apart because individual identity has begun to develop; friendships can move down the hierarchy continuum to a lower level, too. Similarly, it is not uncommon to hear teenagers say, “I thought he

Friends and Countrymen

11

was a geek but he is really a nice guy.” Movement in this case is from a level of acquaintance to friend, possibly even to close friends. Identity development is allowing these teenagers to find a common friendship. Remember Tom, the 26-year-old attorney? He once came to a session complaining, “Making friends is very hard work.” I asked him why; he explained that he understood that there were different levels of friendships but that it was hard to find where each person should fit. “You don’t really know who you can trust until you are actually in a situation where trust is at stake.” Tom also pointed out “Unless I know who I am, I’m not really sure how to act. What I mean is, at work my role is well structured. I know how to talk to my co-workers, my bosses, just about everybody. I sometimes just don’t know how to act in the coffee room when someone makes small talk.” Tom was talking about the process that most people undergo as teenagers, the awkwardness, and the desire to feel part of a well-structured group, the need to be more self-aware, and the ability to find those who could be emotionally supportive and trustworthy. “It’s not that I can’t talk to anybody about anything,” Tom continued. “I can, and I’m not uncomfortable about it, either. It’s the stuff with deeper emotions that I have a harder time with.” Tom was stuck in the stage of identity, and had not allowed himself to define, who he was and how he could fit in. Tom, with some time and work, began to understand that he held back for fear of being hurt. As soon as he let his guard down and began risking a friendship, relationships became easier, more comfortable and rewarding. The more time he spent working at overcoming the problem the closer the friendships became.

SUMMARY In this chapter we explored a model of the three levels of friendship, the three categories of friends (acquaintance, friend, and close friend), and a continuum along which friendships are ranked. We also looked at how friendships both allow and require us to form a better sense of our own identity. Until the formation of identity is accomplished, we will not have the skills necessary to be successful in an intimate relationship. It is, therefore, most likely that our very closest friends are those who share a great deal with us and have identities similar to ours. We do not form our closest friendships until we are adults and these friendships are based on emotional support, mutual trust, loyalty, sharing of advice, appreciation and thoughtfulness. While there is always a modicum of selfishness in our friendships, we know that we can count on our closest friends to be there for us, there is also selflessness because we

12

Chapter One

know that we will give to them what they need from our friendship. There is a sense of being related and the attachment that develops along with a strong feeling of altruism that binds us. In Chapter Two we will look at the basic building blocks of personality. With the increasingly popular Five Factor model of personality we begin to understand in a simple and direct way just what underlies the definition of who we are and how we interact with the world. We also began to look at how some personalities are disordered. To this point, we have developed a model of individuals and their relationships. In the next few chapters, we will look at how we actually choose relationships. Do you need to feel loved before you can open yourself up emotionally to another person? Are you someone who needs to maintain a degree of distance in a relationship in order to feel close? If someone wants you to be with him or her most of the time do you feel caged in and end the relationship as quickly as possible? Are you someone who falls in love all the time, especially with people who are not right for you? Do you need someone to be a decision maker for you? These are some of the feelings, which people bring to the formation of a relationship. But first, let’s take a deeper look at personality.

Chapter Two

Personality: What Exactly Is It?

Daily we speak of personality in a way that belies our understanding of the concept. “She has a great personality.” “I don’t like his personality.” “His personality could use a tune-up.” “Her personality is painfully dull.” What do these statements mean? Somehow, in the course of conversation, we hear the word personality and we seem to understand what it means. The truth is, however, that what we refer to in casual conversation as personality is not at all what the term implies in its broadest context. “She has a great personality” probably means that she is likely to be very friendly and outgoing and usually extroverted. The statement, “I don’t like his personality” might lead us to believe that he is heartless or possibly withdrawn, mean and introverted. So, too, the statement about his requiring a “personality tune-up” would lead us to believe that there is something very wrong with his personality. All of these statements imply that we are assessing people. What about the statement, that, an individual has a painfully dull personality? The key word in this phrase is dull, not personality. We understand the statement to mean that she is a very boring individual. While that may give us some insight into her personality, like the other statements above, we are given very little information about the person’s overall personality functioning. Like other statements, it implies that an evaluation is being made. However, it is a very limited evaluation. Perhaps the individual with the “great” personality functions that way only in a specific setting. Or, the man who needs the personality “tune-up” is actually quite extroverted in every setting but work, where the comment was made about him. The point is clear: When 13

14

Chapter Two

we casually refer to personality, we do little more than describe someone functioning in a very limited and abbreviated manner. When we form relationships, we actually delve into the broader aspects of an individual’s true personality, even though we are often unaware that this is what we are doing. That is, we look at a broad constellation of behaviors in a variety of different environments and we evaluate them. We do not necessarily do it consciously or deliberately, but somehow it happens. We actually compare ourselves to others unconsciously and automatically. This process is so pervasive, it impacts the way we view ourselves, how we relate to others, even the people we choose to vote for. Interestingly though, it is difficult to define what it is that is actually taking place in this assessment and, therefore, just what personality is. This is not just true for laymen but for students of human behavior as well.

A HISTORY OF PERSONALITY For ages, scientists, poets, researchers, clinicians, and romantics have attempted to define the concept of personality. The issue of judging one’s character is a question not just for measurement by scientists in a laboratory, but also for daily life. Personality is not simply what makes up those characteristics of an individual that can be quantified or somehow measured, but also asks very personal questions: “How can I judge his or her character in daily life?” “What about the person who just moved in next door?” “How do I really know the person I am dating?” “How do I know who is like me?” And, “Whom can I trust?” While the concepts can be a little confusing, it is important to try to understand them. To do so, it is necessary to understand some basic definitions that have been frequently used. Personality has been referred to as being constructed of both character and temperament. These two terms refer to two different ideas. Character is a more literary term. It is most often used to describe the social consequences of an individual’s behavior. When someone says, “he’s a real character,” we almost all understand that to mean that someone is behaving in an offbeat fashion. The statement does not tell us much, but it does give us a feel for the individual’s behavior around others. Temperament, on the other hand, is a more clinical or scientific term. When we speak of temperament, we are referring to behavioral dispositions, which are a result of presumed underlying biological mechanisms. Similarly, traits,

Personality: What Exactly Is It?

15

which are considered relatively enduring aspects of personality, are often used interchangeably with the term temperament. When speaking of personality today from a scientific perspective, we are referring to the combination of traits and temperament. The earliest attempts to understand personality were based on astrological signs, and there is still a large market for people who wish to predict what their day will be like based on the positions of the stars. Other attempts over the generations have included examining facial characteristics or bone structure to understand one’s temperament. While enduring, these approaches do not contribute to our true understanding of personality. The early Greek physician, Hippocrates, in the prevailing thoughts of his time, postulated that all things in the world were made up of four elements—earth, air, fire and water. As a physician, he extended the same idea to medicine. Thus, according to Hippocrates, the four elements of the world corresponded to four elements, or humors, within the human body. In this theory, fire corresponded to blood, water to phlegm, earth to black bile, and air to yellow bile. When all four elements were kept in check, the world, and the individual, would be in perfect balance and health. About five hundred years later, in the second century, Galen, also a Greek physician and philosopher extended the theory of what came to be known as the four humors or fluids of human character. In this humoral theory of personality, Galen explained that a melancholic person suffered from too much black bile, a choleric individual had an excess of yellow bile, a sanguine individual had too much blood, and an excess of phlegm, not too surprisingly, caused a person to be phlegmatic. The humoral theory misled medical practitioners for many hundreds of years after Galen. It suggested that bloodletting, or other methods of adjusting bodily humors, could cure illness and change temperament but, in fact, Galen had at best described not medical or biological systems; rather he described character, that vague idea of how a person acts or behaves. The more modern and accurate approaches to personality are based on the exploration of traits, their definition and calculation. Much of our understanding of personality development is a result of the personality theorists of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Sigmund Freud, for example, using astute clinical observation, found that adult personality is a result of the ego’s ability to control childhood impulses and channel them into appropriate behavior. Alfred Adler, a student of Freud, suggested that birth order led to a long-term personality outcome. We now know that birth order is related to IQ but Adler’s most famous observation was that the middle child tends to have the lowest self-esteem. Similarly, other theorists and clinicians described stages of personal development and, how people tend to change as well as to remain

16

Chapter Two

the same. These clinical theorists did a great deal to describe personality development but did little in terms of formal measurement and quantification. Their findings were mostly anecdotal and may have actually had more to do with character than personality, but they did move the field of inquiry forward to a more refined level of quantification. A technique for measuring personality did begin to come into existence at about that same time. Raymond Cattell, one of the most famous personalitytrait theorists, said in his biography that, while Freud’s clinical observations were of interest, they could never provide what was needed, something he referred to as a “quantitative taxonomy” for the measurement of personality. With the advent of World War I, that not only became possible; it became imperative. The United States government needed a tool to weed out individuals who could not be soldiers due to emotional problems. Dr. Robert Woodsworth of Columbia University was commissioned to develop a rapid, easy-to-understand-and-use technique for the assessment of neuroses, and in 1917 devised the Personal Data Sheet. This self-evaluating paper-and-pencil test, consisting of what today would be considered, rather crude questions, started the trend toward the development of questionnaires to assess personality. In his questionnaire, Woodsworth asked army recruits to admit to specific symptoms such as sleepwalking or fear of heights. Based on the quantity of symptoms, candidates could be either included or excluded from the selection. It was not long after the development of the Personal Data Sheet that new questionnaires were designed which included items that were directed toward, evaluating aspects of a respondent’s overall personality, rather than just symptoms. In 1931, Robert Bernreuter developed a test consisting of 15 items and devised a scoring system that loaded responses on four possible personality traits—dominance, self-sufficiency, introversion, and neuroticism. In its time, the Bernreuter Personality Inventory sold over a million copies, attesting not simply to a fascination with personality assessment, but also to its utility. Here was a scale that looked at quantifiable and easily understood traits. While traits described elements of a personality, they could not predict behavior or provide a clear understanding of the way that personality developed. To counter concerns that personality tests based on an evaluation of traits could not address the very real need to understand actual behaviors, Gordon Allport, a professor of psychology and social ethics at Harvard, and his brother, Floyd, also a psychologist, developed a self-administered test of how people would behave in specific situations based on their own traits. The Allports’ goal was to develop a technique to assess personality as a means to determine behavior. What the Allports found was that traits were central to an understanding of the concept of personality but, more importantly, individu-

Personality: What Exactly Is It?

17

als behaved in similar ways given similar situations. The situation determined a person’s behavior. To understand how this phenomenon could be interpreted required that the Allports create the concept of a hierarchical structure of traits. At the top of the hierarchy, they hypothesized a cardinal trait, the one trait that offers an overall view of an individual. This, however, did not provide us with any real insight into any one individual’s personality; therefore, two additional layers were thought to exist. At the next highest level, are the traits they referred to as central, and below that are the secondary traits. Thus, if in one situation we see a woman acting calmly and in another with great urgency, we would believe that the secondary trait that they referred to as flexibility was operating to allow her to react as needed in each situation. Gordon Allport’s efforts helped to establish the centrality of trait theory in the study of personality. Finding a way to classify, but more importantly, measure personality traits and understand behavior, has led to much psychological research over the years. Two individuals, H. J. Eysenck and Raymond Cattell are credited with developing the modern approach to assessment of trait-based personality. Both approached the task with the concept of analyzing overall unitary or unifying ideas, of personality traits using a mathematical representation referred to as a factor. Eysenck began with the concept of two or three primary factors, which would help to explain what personality, truly is. Cattell, in a more scientific approach, began with hundreds of variables used to define or explain individual behavior and mathematically analyzed them down to sixteen primary factors. H. J. Eysenck believed that individual differences in a wide range of traits are related to differences in the dimensions of extroversion and neuroticism. These two dimensions, or factors, are built-up of underlying behaviors or specific responses to specific situations. For example, if an individual preferred staying at home watching television and was not often invited to parties, that person would be introverted, whereas an extroverted person would be most comfortable in social situations and would seek them out. In this example, the underlying behaviors of staying home and avoiding socializing led to the trait of introversion. Similarly, the opposite of neuroticism would be normal, or stable behaviors and the extreme of neuroticism would be psychoticism, or radical behaviors. Using the Eysenck Personality Inventory one could map out just where an individual would fall on Eysenck’s two factors. Introversion and extroversion are not, necessarily, polar opposites. They exist on one long continuum, and all people fall along the continuum. Neuroticism and psychoticism also fall on a continuum. These four points are often conceptualized as forming a circle with four quadrants and individual personalities configure somewhere within the four quadrants.

18

Chapter Two

Figure 2.1. Eysenck’s Two-Factor Theory.

Thus, people can be more extroverted than introverted and more psychotic than neurotic. They may fall on the points as shown in Figure 2.1. According to this scheme, a description of behavior based on traits, could be made if an individual is extroverted and stable, she would have a carefree, easy-going, leadership personality style. If extroverted but neurotic, the individual would be excitable, aggressive, impulsive, and prone to mental illness. A peaceful, controlled, reliable, even-tempered individual would score high on the introversion and stable dimensions of personality. An introverted neurotic individual would be a moody, anxious and pessimistic person. Interestingly, these four types correspond to Galen’s four humors: Extroverted and stable corresponds to sanguine; neurotic corresponds to choleric; introverted and stable corresponds to phlegmatic; and introverted and neurotic corresponds to melancholic. Eysenck, aware of this correspondence to a system that was more philosophic than scientific, made little of the similarities of his formulation to that of Galen’s. Instead, over the years, he devised several means of exploring, analyzing and predicting specific behaviors based upon his trait theory. In one example, Eysenck used scores from his Personality Inventory and results from a questionnaire entitled the “Inventory of Attitudes to Sex” to prove, and conclude, that extroverts are more likely to get along better with members of the opposite sex, are more likely to begin sexual behavior earlier in life, and are more likely to have extramarital affairs than introverts. Raymond Cattell began his career as a physicist, hence his fascination with finding a mathematical evaluation that could quantify behavior. Using hun-

Personality: What Exactly Is It?

19

dreds of behavioral adjectives, he hypothesized that personality was made up of levels or strata. He and his colleagues found 171 surface traits, which he then grouped into 62 clusters. Finding that many of the clusters could be combined, he mathematically factored them down to 35 and ultimately to the 16 primary factors or source traits, which make up his Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). This approach presumes that all personality types can be made to fit a profile based upon scoring on the 16 factors. The 16PF consists of 16 bipolar scales. Based upon a number of responses, individuals will score somewhere along each of the 16 factors. The 16 factors consist of continuum items along a line, such as from trusting to suspicious, reserved to outgoing, and relaxed to tense. When completed, a personality profile is developed for the respondent on the 16 factors. The 16PF has been successfully used to sort individuals, based on the scores they have achieved and their profiles, according to different occupational groups or by illness and mental illness. The 16PF questionnaire is still in use today but has given way to less complex personality measures, which have taken the analysis of the 16 factors to an additional level. It has been argued that if one were to mathematically analyze Cattell’s 16 primary traits one additional time and thereby seek the unitary underlying sources, one would be left with just four or five factors. In a sense this is quite similar to Eysenck’s formulation, if you see his two factor theory as actually consisting of the two items and their bipolar opposites— introversion-extroversion and neuroticism-psychoticism. Perhaps the most widely accepted and most rigorously used of the newer personality formats is the NEO Personality Inventory, or the NEO-PI. This approach is also based on a model of hierarchical traits that has five primary or source factors. Interestingly, Thurstone, who indicated that of the 60 traits, he was aware of five factors that could explain them all, initially proposed the five-factor model in the early 1930s. At the same time, James McDougall also proposed that theoretically, personality could be analyzed into five distinguishable factors. Thus, the “Big Five” model was born, at least conceptually. Increasing research provides ongoing evidence of the utility of the fivefactor model in that most other trait-based personality models, such as Eysenck’s and Cattell’s, can be interpreted or mathematically factored into these five main items. The five factors are neuroticism, extroversion, and openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The similarities to other models are evident. Neuroticism refers to an emotional-instability trait, which consists of anxiety, hostility, depression and impulsiveness. Extroversion is related to social gregariousness, warmth, activity and excitement seeking. It also taps into a positive emotion trait item. The third factor, Openness to experience, describes individuals who are curious, imaginative,

20

Chapter Two

open to fantasy, have a deep appreciation for beauty and art, a high level of intellectual curiosity, and a readiness to explore social and religious values. The fourth factor measures the kinds of interactions a person prefers along the continuum of antagonism to compassion. This factor, Agreeableness includes traits like trust, altruism, modesty and tender mindedness. Conscientiousness, the fifth factor, describes competence, organization, striving for achievement, and self-discipline.

GENETICS If a few traits can describe, at least generally, the primary aspects of all human personality, then there is the inevitable question of whether there are underlying neurological, physiological or even genetic factors that exist in all individuals. The Human Genome Project began as a global attempt to map out all of the genes that make up human life. With the scientific excitement this project has generated, the link between genetics and personality was inevitably an interesting research area. A front-page article in the New York Times on January 2, 1996, proclaimed that “A Variant Gene Tied to a Love of New Thrills” was discovered. The article went on to explain, “The first gene that scientists have found linked to an ordinary (sic) human personality trait is a gene involved in the search for new things.” Two teams of researchers using widely disparate subjects from different cultural and historical backgrounds found a “partial genetic explanation” for the “thrill seeking” or “novelty seeking” personality. Noveltyseeking individuals are extroverted and fit the descriptions attributed to them within that category of the five-factor model—including being quick-tempered, excitable, exploratory, and extravagant. The New York Times article was based on research that found that a receptor on a slightly elongated gene, which seems to be correlated with noveltyseeking persons compared to individuals who act more reserved and whose corresponding gene is not quite as long. The receptor is the D4 dopamine receptor. Dopamine is a neurochemical found in every human being’s brain and has often been linked to, among other things, pleasure. The article also quotes a famous psychologist and personality theorist, Dr. C. Robert Cloninger, who is credited with initially proposing the link between dopamine and novelty seeking. He originally proposed four personality humors (sound familiar?) including novelty seeking or extroversion, avoidance of harm, dependence on reward, and persistence. In an article that caught public attention in the July 16, 1996 edition of the New York Times, the Science Times section reported a study that suggested that happiness is determined by genetic makeup. According to twin studies

Personality: What Exactly Is It?

21

and studies of lottery winners one year after winning, happiness appears to have a predetermined set-point in all of us. Lottery winners are no happier one-year following their winning than prior to their great fortune. Twins, especially identical maternal ones, tend to have the same levels of happiness or overall well-being. It is also, hypothesized that happiness seems to be related to dopamine receptors, just like novelty seeking. In more recent research, reported in 2005, Professor Richard Ebstein of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel found a variant gene on chromosome II that seems to be linked with altruistic behaviors. Individuals with this gene variant seem to get a good feeling from helping others. Does all this mean that our personalities are fixed and there is nothing, we can do to change our basic traits? Perhaps, to a certain degree it does. However, genes do not entirely explain behavior. Genetic research may help us understand why some individuals have a predisposition toward certain personality traits. It is fair to assume that no one gene will explain any individual’s personality, and even if all the genes linked to personality are clearly mapped out, that can never take into account all the random events of life that are either rewarding or difficult or even punishing, and thereby help to mold who we are. For example, a child may be born colicky and cranky. If his caretakers are easily frustrated, his propensity toward being neurotic and introverted could easily be reinforced. On the other hand, if his caretakers are, warm and nurturing despite his behavior, the extroverted component of his personality will be reinforced. It is now reasonably accepted that genes explain anywhere from 30% to 70% of our underlying traits. But it is also accepted that the more interesting question is the way environment interacts on the remaining 30% to 70% of trait-based personality. In other words, complex human behavior does not depend exclusively on our genetic heritability. Furthermore, there are now some studies that show that certain environmental changes can lead to changes in the amounts of dopamine, norepinephrine, oxytocin, and serotonin, the neurotransmitters or chemical messengers in the brain that in turn affect behavior. Clearly it is a complex process that includes all aspects of life, not a preprogrammed aspect that defines an individual’s personality.

ATTRIBUTES AND ATTITUDES As we have seen, personality can be described as consisting of a variety of traits. Whether we subscribe to a model that consists of four primary traits, five traits, or sixteen or more traits appears to be secondary to the unifying idea that we can understand, describe and define many aspects of an individual’s personality. Even if there is a genetic predisposition to the construct we

22

Chapter Two

call, “personality,” we know that it is exhibited in different ways in different situations. What genes do is code for amounts of proteins and in turn certain biological sensitivities but they can never explain behavior completely. To help us make sense of these seemingly variable permutations, students of human behavior have developed the concepts of attitudes and attributes. Attribution theory attempts to describe the way we account for human behavior. Attributes are related to control and motivation. Essentially, attributes are our beliefs or thoughts about an object or person. If we see a person behaving in a certain fashion, we attribute to them a reason for their behavior. For instance, we see a woman walking towards an intersection and as she steps into the street she suddenly stops, turns around and heads back in the same direction from which she came, we might attribute to her any number of reasons for her behavior. One possible attribution is that she forgot something and went back to get it. Another possibility is that she suddenly realized she was headed the wrong way. Still another attribution is that she suddenly had a panic attack and retreated. Similarly, if we are at a party and see an attractive person staring at us one possible attribution is that the person is attracted to us. Another possibility, though, is that the person is staring at the piece of spinach dangling from our lower lip. Often our attributes are colored, and clouded by our own experiences, strengths and insecurities, our own likes and dislikes. This evaluation process that we apply to an object, as opposed to the conditions or beliefs about a person or object, is an attitude. Attitudes are opinions, mental predispositions or mental readiness. Do I like or dislike old people? Those, who live on the Upper East Side? Or bus drivers—? These are daily attitudes. So, seeing that person at the party staring at you may actually be attributed to spinach on the lip rather than due to an insecurity that you have about yourself or their attraction based upon your own positive feelings of yourself. Attitudes or opinions are not random or transitory. They are often unconscious and immediate. Despite being often unconscious and immediate with some effort, they can be changed. Thus, if you can change an attitude you change attributions and, in turn, you may effect a long-lasting behavioral change. The key to all of this is that even if an individual’s underlying primary personality may be biologically imprinted, immutable attitudes, attributes and behavior can change. In other words, nature and nurture work together to produce who we are and how we behave.

ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN A few years ago, I was involved in an interesting series of studies of personality and dementia. In the study I performed, a group of individuals in the

Personality: What Exactly Is It?

23

early stages of dementia were rated using the 16 PF, the Cattell test of personality. The individuals were also rated by a close family relative who was asked to evaluate the subject’s personality twice, once as the subject appeared to them at present, and again rating the personality that they recalled the subject having at least five years before receiving the diagnosis of dementia. The results were striking in that the common clinical thinking is that one of the defining characters of dementia is change in personality. While that is true in the later stages of the disease, it is not universally or globally so, particularly in the early and middle stages of the disease. Our findings suggest that certain traits remained extremely stable. Furthermore, the overall profile, while usually shifting to a more rigid posture, remained overall, stable. In fact, nine of the 16 traits remained so. The traits that were most stable included whether or not the personality could be described as cool or warm and shy or bold. Just a few years later, a student of mine designed a similar study of personality stability in dementia. Dr. Marc Richman, this time using the NEO-PI inventory of personality, found similar results. In his study, the traits that remained most stable were neuroticism, extroversion, openness and agreeableness, four of the big five. An interesting side note is the similarity to Eysenck’s two primary factors, neuroticism and extroversion, which remained stable. In both studies, all of the participants were over the age of 65. Several longitudinal studies of personality have been conducted over the last 50 years. These studies were designed to follow and track individuals as they aged, over an extended period of time; most of the studies have followed people for several decades. These studies looked at biological change along with age, social, emotional, and personality changes, as well. They have been conducted in different locations under the auspices of different organizations and research institutions and have had differing focuses. The studies were based in Berkeley, Seattle and Baltimore, at Duke University, and at the Veterans Administration. All of these studies concluded that personality, at least from the perspective of trait measurement, is stable over the course of many years. If personality does change, the only trait that seems to be regularly altered with age is introversion. Simply stated, people remain much the same over the course of their life. There is little evidence for any change in personality with age, and where there is change only the trait of introversion seems to be affected. With age, people tend to become slightly more introverted. The results of these studies along with the findings from genetic studies discussed above make a strong case for a biological predisposition toward an underlying established personality profile within each individual. As we will see the fact that our traits stay the same has an impact on the way we exhibit attributes and our attitudes about life. And this in turn may dictate how we interact with other personality types and who we get along with best.

24

Chapter Two

PERSONALITY AND HEALTH In addition to his unique use of the four humors to explain human temperament, Galen made an interesting observation of his patients. He estimated that 60% of the people he treated for physical ailments suffered from an emotionally caused problem rather than a physical one. We commonly refer to this illness behavior as “psychosomatic”, from the Greek words for soul and body, or the influence the mind has on physical well-being. Over the years, some clinicians have suggested using the term psychogenic, that is, the soul or the mind is the cause of the problem. Interestingly, Galen’s observations seem to be accurate today. Much of the illness seen by the average medical doctor is psychogenic in nature. There is no question that the mind is a powerful mediator when it comes to mental states. Not only can the mind cause us to react in stressed ways, giving us more than a hint of anxiety, but also it can cause us to dissociate, that is, have episodes where we forget incidents, events, and even personal information of a stressful nature, such as the memory of the pain of childbirth. The way we perceive certain incidents mentally can also cause us to react physically. If an event is perceived, as stressful, our bodies react in a “fight or flight” mode. Certain hormones are released, causing some internal organs to react more rapidly while others tend to slow down. Repeated arousal of this type can cause our bodies to become hyper-sensitized or hyper-aroused. Bessel Van der Kolk, a clinician, researcher and teacher who has studied severely traumatized individuals, has found that given the degree of physiological arousal he could determine at just what point in a person’s life the primary, or initial overwhelming trauma occurred. There are some individuals, who believe that there is a specific group of personality characteristics that; predispose individuals to illness. They point to research on early-childhood trauma, which can erode self-esteem and confidence for a lifetime; and studies of severe trauma, which can cause lifelong physical as well as personality alterations. Some research has been collected suggesting that well-defined personality types can develop predictable stress or illness. Following this line of reasoning, it is said that individuals who suffer from migraine headaches tend to feel easily frustrated, guilty, and are immature. Individuals, who feel helpless, immature and overprotected, using the same reasoning, tend to be more likely to suffer from asthma. Those, who were raised to be excessively dependent and are obsessed with perfection, tend to develop gastrointestinal difficulties, and the “Type A” personality is more prone to cardiac ailments. While there is, indeed, some veracity to the concept of a link between personality and well-being, the information available at this time suggests that

Personality: What Exactly Is It?

25

many more variables are involved in health than simply basic personality traits. Behavior, life experience, social support, and general environment are all involved in healthy outcomes. When any one of these is impaired, health may suffer. This is not to say that personality is not involved; it is, but to what degree is unclear at the present.

PERSONALITY DISORDERS Until this point, we have explored the definitions of personality and the traits said to be at the foundation of personality. Traits appear to be unconscious, fixed patterns of behavior that describe an individual’s actions and reactions. While behavior is complex, if one knows a person well enough and understands the demands of a particular situation, theoretically, one should be able to predict that person’s behavior. This predictive ability is based upon knowledge of the individual’s traits and the demands of the situation. There are individuals, however, whose behavior can become rigid and inflexible. They can seem rude, obnoxious or completely unpredictable. At times, they seem happy and within moments, they change, becoming explosive or tearful. They seem terribly “neurotic” yet they are not considered mentally ill because they do not fit the criteria for a clinical disorder. They do, however, fit the requirements of what is referred to as an Axis II diagnosis or a personality disorder. When a persons’ long-term behavior is rigid and inflexible, self-damaging and eccentric, yet they do not have a clear depression, anxiety disorder, or psychosis, they may be suffering from a character flaw or personality disorder. To distinguish personality disorders from mental illness, the use of a second classification is employed. Where clinical diagnoses of mental illness are coded on Axis I, personality disorders are coded on Axis II. Personality disorders can be found in individuals with clinical problems, and many studies have suggested that the clinical diagnoses are concomitant with personality disorders in a majority of cases. Some researchers believe that the construct of personality disorders is either nonexistent or, at best, defined as an interpersonal problem or problem of living, that results from having an extreme form of a personality trait or traits. Nevertheless, employing the trait approach, there are personalities that meet certain general schemes or patterns that are pathological and may therefore be, characterized as disorders. According to current conceptualizations, there are three broad categories of personality disorders. Within each category are specific types of disorders. The category referred to as eccentric includes three personality disorders.

26

Chapter Two

Paranoid Personality Disorder describes an individual who is suspicious, guarded, carries a grudge and is generally tense. An individual who is socially isolated and has restricted emotional expression can have a Schizoid Personality Disorder. A Schizotypal Personality Disorder individual is someone who has peculiar patterns of thought, appearance and behavior, and is socially isolated. The second category of personality disorder is referred to as the dramatic or erratic. An Antisocial Personality Disorder includes individuals who are manipulative, exploitive, dishonest, lacking guilt, and often prone to breaking rules. A Borderline Personality Disorder describes individuals who have intense, unstable moods and relationships. They are self-destructive and may have made suicide attempts as well as have drug abuse histories. They also complain of chronic anger and boredom. An individual with a Histrionic Personality Disorder is emotionally shallow, seductive and demands immediate gratification. The Narcissistic Personality Disordered person has fantasies of perfection, is very preoccupied with envy, demands special treatment and is extremely self-absorbed. Fearful or anxious is the third personality disorder category. Individuals who tend to be easily hurt, or embarrassed and share few friends, are classified as having an Avoidant Personality Disorder. Persons who need constant reassurance and advice, are fearful of being abandoned, and allow others to make decisions for them may have a Dependent Personality Disorder. An Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder describes someone who is stiff, perfectionistic, indecisive, preoccupied with details, extremely conscientious, and perhaps unable to express affection. Just as persons can have a combination of traits that make up their personalities so, too, can they have a combination of negative or rigid traits that indicate a combination of personality disorders. For example, Steve is the type of guy who parks his car wherever he wants. He does not have a disability but has no problem with parking in a spot reserved for disabled individuals. He does not pay his parking tickets, preferring to ignore them or fight them. If he loses in court, he pays the fine but blames the judge. He will jump the line at the movie theater and answers those who tell him to get to the back of the line by cursing at them. He also carries grudges against many people, going as far back as 30 years or more. He clearly remembers that Tommy did not choose him first to play basketball when he was in seventh grade. Steve can also be charming, even disarmingly friendly, but with other than his immediate family, he has few social contacts and no friends. He claims that’s because he doesn’t like people; they don’t respect him. He feels that he is so much greater a person than most others see him. It is more likely that he is uncomfortable and turns others away. He’s been engaged to be married twice and in both

Personality: What Exactly Is It?

27

cases blames the woman and her family for the engagements’ dissolution. At work, he is moderately successful, and if things do not turn out the way he planned, he often blames his co-workers. Steve probably has narcissistic and paranoid personality traits and likely has a personality disorder. In later chapters, we will look at some personality disorders in much more detail. We will also explore how individuals with these characteristics form bonds with others. This will help us to understand more about personality and how personality acts to help us develop certain types of relationships.

SUMMARY Reading these descriptors of personality disorders one might feel that one fits some, if not all, of the criteria and is suffering from a multitude of disorders. Remember that everyone agrees that a disorder of personality is an extreme expression of traits and behaviors. More important is the understanding that the trait approach to personality describes only the basics that underlie an individual. It is possible, even likely, to be rigid in some situations but act flexibly in others. As we have seen, in chapter one, we form different types of relationships. In this chapter, we see that basic personality is only one part of an individual. In the next chapter, we will look at how different types of relationships combine with personality types to form interpersonal relationships.

Chapter Three

How We Choose a Relationship

What are the emotional underpinnings that each of us brings to the formation of a relationship? Are we even aware that we have these feelings? The emotions and behaviors that lead us into developing a relationship are not just there for the ride. They are steering the car but because we have not paid attention to them, we may not even be aware that they exist. At the end of the first chapter, I asked several questions. Do you need to feel loved before you can emotionally reveal yourself to another person? Are you someone who needs to maintain distance in a relationship to feel close? And so forth. In the second chapter, we discussed what personality is made up of. In this chapter, we will look at some of the behaviors and emotions, and the related variables, including, personality type that underlie our feelings. We will also explore how feelings affect our behaviors in forming and maintaining relationships. There are many similarities between friendships and marriages and many of the concepts explored in this chapter refer to both types of relationships. In fact, many of the concepts apply to distant relationships as well. Recent research shows that choosing a politician is often based on how similar we feel that we are. As I said before, you are lucky if you have just one or two very close friends in your lifetime, and ideally, your spouse should be one of them. Except for the sexual relationship, the same attractions for close friendships could and should apply in a marriage. Women may find it easier to feel warmth or show closeness in all relationships, but it would be incorrect to assume that men do not have similar feelings and attractions, regardless of the difference in form or expression. Thus, the distinctions between how the sexes form relationships and interact with their closest friends may be little more than gender-specific and, therefore, superficial. 28

How We Choose a Relationship

29

I remember reading an amusing story that suggested that dog owners and the dogs they own share similar characteristics. What struck me most about the article was the fact that the story rang very true. Active, excitable people seem to have active, excitable dogs. Calmer individuals seem to have dogs that are more passive. One psychiatrist with a very Freudian orientation has a spaniel that does not bark. When you walk into a room in which the dog is lying, he simply lifts his head, stares at you, and tilts his head questioningly. I also know the CEO of a large manufacturing company whose dog, a collie, is constantly running around and barking, much like his master. Around the same time that I read the article on dogs and their owners, I read an article on how spouses tend to resemble one another over time. There was even a photo spread that accompanied the article, showing not just similarities in style of clothing, but physical similarities as well. I believe there is a great deal of truth in all of this. In the case of successful marriages and very close friendships, however, I do no think that similarities develop with time; similarities were always there, they simply become more evident over time. In brief, we are attracted to people for very good, often specific and possibly unconscious reasons. THE SCENTS OF ATTRACTION Much has been written about how certain body scents cause the attractions that result in relationships. These findings are, based primarily upon work done with the animal kingdom. It has been found that many insects and animals release chemicals when they are ready to mate. These chemicals, called pheromones, are said to cause two opposite-sexed members of a specific species to be attracted to one another. In some species, just the female releases the scents, in some species, the male releases the scent; and in still others, both release the smells that attract. Scientific evidence indicates that, pheromones act as signals that induce mating behaviors in insects and in certain mammals, in particular, rodents. That is, even in the absence of a mate, if the scent is released, the oppositesexed animal will begin to display mating behavior. These scents have shown to cause reactions in the endocrine system of the species, which is the system that controls hormones. In hamsters, rats, and pigs, pheromones cause the initiation of mating behaviors. It have been shown that the scents are processed by the olfactory system, which is the system that helps us process smells and a small gland called the vomeronasal organ, deep inside the nose. Stimulation of this organ by a scent causes release of hormones, which, in turn, results in sexual behaviors.

30

Chapter Three

Much has been hypothesized about the scents that humans release. More has been made of how to enhance those scents. For centuries, perfumes have been designed to enhance relationships and attract members of the opposite sex. Some scents are “fruity,” others are “woodsy,” but musk is said to most likely be the scent of attraction in humans. There is no question that certain odors and smells are important for attraction. If they were not, the perfume industry would not be the multi-billion dollar business it is. It is also quite likely that humans secrete pheromones, too. In fact, it has recently been found that humans have a vomeronasal organ, and a scent released by the skin of men has been credited with reducing negative mood in women. Still, if this line of research proves to be valid, attraction is likely the limit of what scents can do. Just as looks attract humans to one another, scents and smells can attract—but they are not sufficient to help form a true relationship.

LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT As part of the history I take from a couple when I see them for marital counseling, I inevitably ask, “How did you meet?” I often get a response such as, “We met at a party,” or “My friend suggested I meet him,” or “It was the funniest thing we were both on line and. . .” The different responses are as numerous as the number of times the question is asked. My next question invariably is, “Was it love at first sight?” The responses to that are significantly less varied—either yes or no, and they are split about equally. I am reminded of the song from Fiddler on the Roof—“Do You Love Me?” Tevye, the hero, beseeches his wife; wanting to know if she loves him. Her responses are very pragmatic—“I’ve cooked and cleaned for you, given you children even milked the cow.” With his continued questioning she finally responds, “I suppose I do.” And his response is “I suppose I love you, too.” Relationships of the past were rooted in the pragmatics of both daily and family life. Husbands were the “breadwinners,” wives the “housewives,” friends were “buddies” or “pals.” The terms explain the expectations of the members of the relationship. You would “pal around” or “buddy-up” with a friend. The husband would “bring home the bacon” and his wife would prepare and serve it for dinner. Relationships were very utilitarian and well defined. The definitions of responsibility were most often based on the gender of each person. Over the last several decades, gender roles have been changing, becoming less well defined. The two-income household blurs the meaning of “breadwinner.” With this change comes more of a need to get to a

How We Choose a Relationship

31

deeper level of relating. Sharing responsibility and chores suggests that sharing of relationships and love need to be expressed more. It is hard to believe that love at first sight is anything more than the overdramatization of the poet. Certainly, immediate attraction is real and important, there is even a chemical reaction of sorts that happen when we are attracted to someone, but love is based on a deeper commitment to one another. Deeper love has to grow with time. In previous generations, relationships could develop and grow within a well-defined structure. That is, expectations were more clearly defined and roles were specified. That structure has given way to a more varied approach to self-definition. As a result, people are looking less for someone to fit into a well-described role than for someone who will allow them to be more of themselves or allow them to extend themselves. More families than ever before are two-career families, both spouses work and contribute financially to the family. While women still do more household chores around the home than men do, the clear division of labor is becoming a thing of the past. New roles are developing and expectations are not always clear, and there is often difficulty balancing the need of the individual with the need of the partner. Over the last few decades there have been several surveys conducted on what people look for in a relationship. As we saw in Chapter Two, some attributes and characteristics are mentioned repeatedly. These attributes include support, trust and loyalty. When asked, “What attracts you to someone,” people seem to have differing responses, and the responses are not gender-specific. Many women, when asked what they are looking for in a man, will respond, “Someone who encourages me to be myself,” or “He’ll support me in all my goals.” In one survey, when asked who an ideal man for a relationship would be, one woman responded, “Someone who will let me have my individuality.” The view, at least among college co-eds, who are among the majority of respondents to these types of surveys, seems to be that relationships are partnerships requiring fair and equal participation without defining specific roles. There is little discussion about love, at least in the early stages of seeking a close relationship. Interestingly, what seems to be indicated as an additional criterion for an ideal relationship is for each of the spouses to have time alone. Striking as this may be, it argues against the romantic notion of “love at first sight.” Where are those people who would say, “We just love to be in a room together even if we are doing very different things”? When young men are asked what they look for in relationships beyond the utilitarian, the responses are often physical. “Legs,” “great body,” “bright eyes.” These responses tend to be immature and narcissistic. Nevertheless,

32

Chapter Three

the responses reflect the individual’s own needs and personality. A young woman I know once told me that she would marry only a doctor, preferably a surgeon. I asked her why. She began by talking about the need to be married to someone who was successful and motivated, someone who was well respected, and who was not afraid to be aggressive. This 22-year-old woman, someone I had treated for an obsessive-compulsive disorder, was planning to become the president of a university someday. She had her professional career all mapped out. She even knew when she would have her children. I did not point it out to her, but she was describing herself when she spoke about the kind of man she wanted to marry. Love at first sight? Of course—if the first thing you see is a mirror image of yourself. When people talk about having fallen in love “at first sight,” one of two possibilities exists—they have found the personality that most resembles their own, or they have created a fantasy of the other and are attempting to have that person live in their fantasy role. Physical attraction, great legs, great body, allowing time for being alone—all of those desires can change either because an individual changes or because of the pressures of marriage and family life. Anticipating love to remain strong based on a fantasy inevitably leads to conflicts down the road. Is there such a thing as love at first sight? Yes, there is, but it is not always the basis for a strong, loving relationship.

LIKE AN OLD WORN SHOE Thus far, we have seen that some people choose relationships because they have been drawn to someone with a similar personality, or because they have found someone who will fit a fantasy. Often, couples are drawn together because the relationship feels “comfortable.” There is a saying that a therapist friend of mine uses on occasion when describing certain relationships—“The rocks in his head fill the holes in hers.” They seem to fit together. The fit is something that each of the members of the relationship views as comfortable. Are you uncomfortable around certain types of people and more comfortable around others? You should be; it is normal to feel more at ease with people you know or have things in common with. It is healthy to feel somewhat less at ease when meeting new people or people you know very little about. If you were asked to speak in public about a technical topic you enjoyed, you might have less anxiety speaking to a group of colleagues than to a group of people who knew nothing about the topic or you. In other words, we feel more comfortable with the people we are most comfortable with. In still other words, I am good with the things that I am most familiar with.

How We Choose a Relationship

33

I had a patient with a very specific obsessive-compulsive disorder. He could only wear the same shoes all the time. Other than his terribly, worn-out shoes, he dressed quite well. The shoes, though, were dirty and very well worn, with several holes, and looked beyond repair. Of course, I asked him why he would not get new shoes, and of course, he replied, “These are very comfortable—if I get new shoes they will hurt until they are broken in.” I indicated to him that the shoes looked as if they caused him pain and asked how he could call a pair of shoes that were so worn comfortable. “You’re right,” he said. “They do make my feet hurt, but at least it’s a pain I’m comfortable with.” This example may seem extreme; however, relationships often develop in the same way. A patient who had come to me about problems in her own marriage began speaking about her parents’ conflicts. After much round about discussion in which she repeatedly presented a variety of examples with the same basic theme, she suddenly came to a very important insight. “Both of my parents were emotionally crippled. My mother felt most at ease when she had someone she could manipulate and my father was most comfortable when he was being controlled or manipulated.” The patient then went on to acknowledge “In some ways I’m like my mother. I guess I know it is not very healthy to be controlling, but it’s something I am very accustomed to doing. And, my husband, like my father, is most comfortable when I manipulate him, even though he tells me he doesn’t really like it.” It is clear that certain attitudinal styles make us feel most at ease even if they are not in our best interest. Similarly, a couple that was having some marital difficulties came to see me to help them overcome their problems. Most of their conflicts revolved around financial setbacks and a lack of communication. In the course of our discussion, the wife made a comment about a business meeting her and her husband had attended. She indicated that she was very quiet at the session. I asked why. She responded, “I can’t speak in public. I’m too tense if there is more than a handful of people in the room, so I let him do the talking for us.” I asked her, “What if he says the wrong thing?” “That’s not a problem,” she answered, “I always prompt him.” He agreed. “She lets me know what to do.” In the retelling of this example, you might feel that the husband would be very upset by this arrangement. That was, however, not the case. He sat there and nodded to her comments, and when I asked him what he thought of them, he smiled and said, “It works just fine for me.” These cases are not strict examples of either opposite or similar personalities attracting. Nor are they examples of fantasy choices of spouses. The people in these cases are attracted to one another simply for the degree of

34

Chapter Three

comfort they experience in their relationship. Their comfort comes from historical expectations of a good fit between one another’s personalities. Continuing with the analogy of the old worn shoe, I know just how the shoe fits and where it pinches. But, I have become so accustomed to the holes that I barely know that they exist. I barely know that the heel is worn down or that my small toes curl whenever I wear the shoes. One could argue with me that a new pair of shoes might fit better but the counter-argument would be that the adjustment period might be too unbearable. So what happens is that the appearance of comfort is perpetuated, or as the patient who acknowledged that her parents were emotionally crippled realized—“I’ve recreated their life in my own marriage. It’s something I’ve grown accustomed to through years of exposure.” It may seem that I have spent a lot of time pointing out how being comfortable may not be positive at all. That may be because, professionally, I only see couples for counseling when there is a problem in the marriage. I do want to make the point that comfort, when approached properly, is extremely positive. Again, with the analogy of the shoe—a well-fitted, comfortable shoe may need a little breaking in when it is brand-new but it very rapidly feels really good. You enjoy putting on those comfortable shoes. Linda was 32 years old when she married George. She had been going out with George for almost a year and felt it was time to “tie the knot,” so by her own admission, she pushed him into marriage. The day of her first anniversary was also the day of her first appointment with me. She felt that she had to get out of her marriage to George. I asked her why. “At first I was happy and comfortable with him. I don’t think I was madly in love, but he seemed okay. And then after we got married he started to yell and push me around. He curses at me a lot and I don’t want to be abused anymore.” Her mother and stepfather had raised Linda. Linda’s stepfather always used his hands on her mother and freely cursed at Linda. In the course of therapy, I pointed out to Linda that the reason she felt comfortable with her husband at the outset was that he acted in a way that she was, unfortunately, accustomed to. Having grown up around a stepfather, who was openly aggressive made her more accepting of that type of behavior, at least initially. It was likely that she even overlooked signs of his aggressiveness during their yearand-a-half of dating. With time, Linda understood and did a great deal to change her feelings about her sense of comfort in a relationship. She did divorce her husband and subsequently remarried someone with a different personality. About her present husband she said, “I had a hard time meeting new men. Not because they weren’t nice, but I guess I wasn’t used to it, and because of that I wasn’t comfortable with the idea of “nice.” With just a little bit of effort I realized that true comfort took a little work on my part. I did the

How We Choose a Relationship

35

work and I found a really nice guy.” I indicated to Linda that she found a nice man because she was a nice woman who was looking for a nice man.

PYGMALION We all know the story of My Fair Lady, the musical based on the play, Pygmalion. Essentially, the story is about a wager between a professor of language and his associate. The professor is convinced he can take a woman from the lower classes of British society and, with the proper training, make it appear that her origins are from the upper class. This story, has been repeated over the years, in other plays and movies—most recently in the film, Pretty Woman. In actuality, the outcome of the wager, however, remains very much in question when the subject of the wager herself returns to her origins. The only way to actually change the woman’s status is by marrying her. Does she actually change, or does the man who invested all this energy in her see the change simply because he wants to or needs to? A line of psychological research has been built on this phenomenon. The Pygmalion Effect, or the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, suggests that we impose on people and situations the expectations and the outcomes that we are desirous of having. One early and famous example that bore out this line of research involved children and a teacher. When a teacher was informed that several of the children in her class were of genius-level intelligence, despite the fact that they were of average intellect, and others in the class were only average, when in fact some of them were not, the ones she thought were brilliant achieved the highest scores and grades. The presumption for the unexpected performance of the children was that due to the expectation of their higher performance, the teacher invested more time in seeing to it that the children labeled as brilliant achieved more. Another explanation is that the children did not actually perform any better, however, the expectation for greater success caused the teacher to see greater success even if it was not there. This “self-fulfilling prophecy” effect applies to relationships as well. If, for example, you need to be needed, you will be attracted to a person you perceive to be needy. The Pygmalion Effect is such that you impose your own expectation that the other person will be as needy as you need them to be. Theoretically that type of attraction is fine and could lead to a good relationship. But what if the other person is not as needy as you need them to be? You may nevertheless, actually still perceive them in that dependent way. That would obviously cause an imbalance or a conflict in the relationship. If you were to somehow become aware of the false impression you had on the other person and had the ability to change, then the relationship might

36

Chapter Three

also continue. If, however, change were impossible for you, the relationship would be in serious jeopardy. In fact, if the relationship were to end, you would be the type of person who could very well say, “I don’t understand why he left me. We had such a wonderful relationship.” There are times when this Pygmalion Effect can be caused by the expectations of others. Relatives and friends, not to mention professionals, love to play matchmaker. If this matchmaker were to convince you that the other person had a personality they, in fact, did not have, you would end up in the same bind-imposing expectations on the relationship based on what you have been told of that person. Self-Fulfilling Prophecies take other, sometimes even more insidious, forms as well. I recently saw a couple that had been married for five years. Both spouses acknowledged that they had a problem and they had tried unsuccessfully to repair the rift on their own. They had a two-year-old child. Their financial situation was good; they had common interests and were, in general, happy with their lives together. Even in their lovemaking, both reported a great deal of satisfaction. The difficulty they expressed was, in the words of the husband; “We have a great time in the bedroom at night but, inevitably, every morning after we make love, Sheila, (his wife) picks a fight.” Sheila concurred. “It’s true. I’m not sure exactly what comes over me, but I just feel that I have to point out something he does wrong. Even if he does everything right.” It did not take long to find the underlying cause of the problem with this articulate, insightful couple. Apparently, Sheila had over the years, developed the expectation that having sex was tantamount to losing control. This developed in part as a result of her upbringing and also partly due to her experiences while dating. She was date-raped by someone she had considered a close friend. To compensate for the fear of losing control, this expectation caused her to feel she developed this mechanism of asserting control over her husband “the morning after.” Therapy in this case consisted of changing the expectations, the self-fulfilling prophecy Sheila had developed. Expectations can also be positive challenging people to rise to the occasion. We have expectations for our children—that they will grow up to be healthy, contributing members of society. We have expectations of our teachers—that they will teach us the lessons we must learn. We also have expectations for those with whom we enter into a relationship. Aside from the obvious expectations to be there and to care for us the way we care for them, with our best friends and spouses we have other expectations as well. We may expect that these others will be able to understand our feelings even before we can articulate them. When this occurs, it can serve to strengthen the relationship. If, however, they do not meet our expectations and we are consciously aware of

How We Choose a Relationship

37

that failure, the possibility exists that we will be disappointed. On the other hand, if there is a strong self-fulfilling prophecy for this behavior, we might trick ourselves into believing that our friend or spouse completely understands us even when they do not. The following statement may reflect how expectations positively impact on a relationship. A couple married for 15 years came to see me at the wife’s insistence. The following was her opening statement: “I look at him and I see someone who is at least 20 pounds overweight, doesn’t want to go to the gym with me, and has these little habits I can’t stand. There’s always an article of clothing lying around. Bills are paid late. When I point it out, I get yelled at. And I can’t stand it anymore. . . . But I love him anyway.” Marital counseling with this type of introduction by a participant is usually easy and results in a positive outcome. Reality is acknowledged and bad habits accepted as something both wish to deal with. The expectation is predicated on the overwhelming final statement that love exists and, therefore, the problems can be worked out. Just as they had been in this case. Love, unfortunately, is not always enough. In too many cases, love may seem like too superficial an emotion because other strengths do not exist. If the expectation is such that your spouse does not trust or respect you then even though she or he may love you, you may resent what is missing in the relationship. Take the case of a couple married for 15 years. Frank worked as a clerk for the town in which he resided. Over the last few years, Bonnie, his wife, went back to school and became an attorney. Her starting salary was one-third higher than the salary Frank was earning after 16 years at his job. Frank had been insecure about Bonnie’s going back to school. He was concerned that she might find someone else “smarter than me.” Because Bonnie had remained loyal, trust was no longer an issue for Frank. Respect was. “Bonnie earns a lot more, and will continue to earn a lot more. She leaves earlier than me and comes home later than me. I think she sees me as lazy and my work as unimportant.” The self-fulfilling prophecy of his view of himself as unworthy made Frank feel that the relationship was doomed. Unfortunately, it was not because Bonnie did not respect him, but because Frank could not be convinced that Bonnie did respect him. More importantly though was the fact that Frank did not respect himself enough to be able to feel the respect Bonnie had for him. You will recall that my basic premise is that partners must have something in common in order to stay together. In the case of Bonnie and Frank, they did not. Frank maintained the insecurity that led him to believe that his wife could not respect him. Bonnie was a most secure, self-assured person. Frank was not.

38

Chapter Three

Judith and Allan are very much alike and while some aspects of their situation are similar to Frank and Bonnie’s, in one key way it is not. Judith also went back to school. She became a physician. Allan is a schoolteacher. Both felt very successful at their choices of career and neither one was insecure. The only expectation each had for the other was that they feel good about the work they did. They were, therefore, supportive of one another and had only positive expectations for each other’s well-being and success. If the self-fulfilling prophecy is not formed based upon a desire to see in the other something that may not be there, then a relationship is more likely to succeed.

COMPROMISE AND ACCOMMODATION Personality, comfort, and expectations all help a relationship to develop and ultimately work out well. There are two additional components, and these are the ability to compromise and accommodate or, in plain terms, give in and get along with the other person. On a very basic level, most people understand that “you can’t always get what you want.” We learn this at a very young age. Immediate gratification, something infants seem to be demanding when they cry, is over the course of one’s life span, taught to be delayed. “Good things come to those who wait” is just one of the sayings we are taught. We internalize the ability to delay the fulfillment of our wants by adjusting to life using two basic mechanisms. The first tool we use is called accommodation. Jean Piaget, a psychologist who studied early childhood development, defined accommodation as “the ability of the child to change his or her own cognitive understanding of an event or situation to incorporate a new experience.” A good example of accommodation is when a young child refers to a parking meter as a “parking eater” or an ambulance as a “vangolance.” The child uses his or her knowledge about the environment to understand or accommodate to new information. Thus, the child who does not understand the concept of “meter” sees the machine eating coins, or the ambulance, which appears similar to a van, becomes a “vangolance.” Adults use accommodation more maturely in marriage and relationships, but the same basic concept is at work. If your wife forgets to take her stockings out of the shower you may rationalize it by saying she has been very busy and forgot, but you might accommodate to it by taking the stockings out yourself. Your husband may forget that you would like him to wear aftershave so you accommodate to it by forgetting that it is significant to you.

How We Choose a Relationship

39

Similarly, we also use the technique of compromise to learn to get along in our lives and relationships. Compromising does not mean always finding the midpoint of a disagreement and expecting both parties to adjust to that middle level. I had one patient tell me that she and her husband worked out a compromise for spending time on the weekends. She would get to choose whatever she wanted them to do on Saturdays. He would choose on Sundays. This is a rigid, compulsive approach to compromise. What compromise does mean is that we develop the ability to understand that sometimes we have to give in completely, and at other times, less so. And, there will also be times when we feel completely correct and our partner does not agree, but he or she may give in completely anyway. How do compromise and accommodation work in a relationship? We have the ability to accommodate many things and compromise with many people. Our ability to do so, however, is enhanced by interacting with those individuals we are most comfortable with. An example is in order: If someone is always forgetful, it would be wise for that person to marry someone who can tolerate the spouse’s regularly forgetting important items, such as a birthday. It is so much easier to accommodate to, and compromise with, those with whom we have a lot in common. One reason interfaith marriages can be so difficult is that the partners’ backgrounds may be very different. With this difference, there often comes a lack of ability to find sufficient common ground and the willingness to accommodate to the other’s religious or cultural needs. Even if there is agreement or accommodation on how to spend holidays, or even which holidays to celebrate, individuals may have a hard time trying to compromise long-held beliefs.

SUMMARY This chapter has allowed us to look at some of the ways we choose relationships. Similar personalities, fulfillment of a fantasy, comfort levels, expectations, and the ability to compromise and accommodate, all factor into the forming of a relationship. In almost all cases, more than one of these factors combines to begin in the making of a relationship. In the first chapter, we looked at friendships and their formation. In Chapter Two we discussed the meaning of personality. This chapter looked at deeper relationships. In the next two chapters, we will look at specific personality types and how they form relationships. To do this requires a dramatic approach. Therefore, we will look at specific examples using personalities that are extreme—the personality disorders we have mentioned above.

Chapter Four

I Love You, I Hate You, I Love Myself: Narcissists and Borderlines

In Chapter Two we took a basic look at personality and basic underlying factors, traits, attitudes, and attributes. We found that there are five general personality factors that exist within every individual, which help to define us and make us who we are. These five factors interact with the environment to cause the patterns of behavior we use to describe a person and his or her actions. We have also come to see that there are a variety of different types of friendships and relationships and that these form as a result, of several differing needs, wants and desires on our part. We have also made the point that the foundation for most successful relationships is not that opposites attract rather it is that “like attracts like.” In the most basic terms, if she is a control freak and he is a manipulator, the odds of a relationship working out are very slim indeed, for you cannot easily control a manipulator nor can you easily manipulate a control freak. On the other hand, if both individuals in the relationship were manipulators they would find a way to manipulate each other and even be happy with their accommodation to one another. In other words, aspects of personality that are similar are, in part, responsible for attraction and continuance of a relationship. Personality is more than any particular individual trait, behavior or, attribute. A discussion of personality styles requires a clear understanding of the five primary factors that underlie it and the environmental impact a person is exposed to. To understand personality in relationships it is helpful to use welldefined, extreme cases as examples. That is the goal of this chapter as well as the next. In Chapter Two we looked at the concept of personality disorders. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (DSM IV); the criterion by which psychological illnesses are categorized, defines personality disorders as “an en40

I Love You, I Hate You, I Love Myself: Narcissists and Borderlines

41

during pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture.” The deviant pattern is manifested in a variety of ways, including perceptions of one’s self and others, degree of rage, intensity, and the appropriateness of emotional responses, social functioning, and impulse control. At least two, but even all of these patterns are different than the norm in that they are usually inflexible, that is they do not change regardless of changes in the situation or environment, and the patterns lead to impairment or distress in major areas of daily functioning such as work, school, or social life. Personality disorders are often noticed by early adulthood or, in some cases, somewhat earlier, during adolescence. There are three personality disorder clusters. Cluster A includes those disorders that tend to be odd or eccentric. Individuals, who are extremely guarded, suspicious, have restricted emotional expression or are emotionally detached and isolated fit into this cluster and can be labeled as having Paranoid, Schizoid or Schizotypal personalities. Paranoid individuals are guarded and suspicious. Schizoid personalities are people who do not have good relationships and those classified as Schizotypal have schizophrenic tendencies but are not delusional. Cluster B includes personality disorders that are characterized by dramatic, erratic or excessively emotional behaviors. They can be manipulative, lacking a sense of guilt, having unstable moods, being inappropriately seductive, demanding immediate gratification or are very much self-absorbed. These behaviors can be classified as either Antisocial, Borderline, Histrionic or Narcissistic personality disorders. Antisocial personalities are typically individuals who have trouble with the law. Borderlines have volatile interactions with others. Histrionic individuals tend to be hysterical, while Narcissists see themselves as better than all others. The third cluster, Cluster C, is characterized by anxious or fearful behavioral patterns. These individuals are easily hurt, have few friends, fear abandonment, and are indecisive and perfectionistic. The personality disorders in this category are Avoidant, Dependent and Obsessive-Compulsive. Avoidant individuals have limited interactions with others. Dependent individuals seem to require that others make decisions for them, while Obsessive-Compulsive personalities are overly conscientious and rigid regarding detail. Most individuals do not suffer from a personality disorder. However, almost all people have some components of rigidity in their temperament or personality that is a unique part of their character. And, it is these aspects that attract or repel others. For the sake of clarity and understanding in both this chapter and the next, we will look at how specific personality disorder types are attracted to one another and why that attraction seems to work so successfully. A note of caution

42

Chapter Four

is in order here, and will be repeated. The emphasis may appear to be on pathological components of the personality disorders. Healthy aspects of these characteristics do exist. In fact, the baby-boom generation has been referred to as a generation of narcissists. That does not mean that every baby boomer is suffering from a Narcissistic Personality disorder; it can be important to put yourself first in certain situations and that does not mean that you are narcissistic. Also, for example, it is appropriate to be tense and guarded in certain situations; this does not mean that you are paranoid. If, however, you are constantly tense and suspicious and regularly bear grudges, you might have a Paranoid Personality disorder. At first, it may seem like a contraindication to state that individuals with different personality disorders are attracted to one another. They should be attracted to people with the same disorder, and they are. However, we will see in the next few pages just how alike they are and how attracted to each other they can be. In this chapter, we will look at two specific personality disorders, and why it seems that people suffering from these disorders tend to be attracted to one another.

NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER According to the DSM IV, the diagnostic criteria for a Narcissistic Personality Disorder include a “pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), a need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early childhood and present in a variety of contexts as indicated by five (or more) of the following: 1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g. exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements); 2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love; 3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions); 4. Requires excessive admiration; 5. Has a sense of entitlement (i.e. unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations); 6. Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e. takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own needs); 7. Lacks empathy (is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others);

I Love You, I Hate You, I Love Myself: Narcissists and Borderlines

43

8. Is often envious of others and believes that others are envious of him or her; 9. Shows arrogant, haughty behavior or attitudes.” Occasionally there are associated features such as a sense of moodiness and a dramatic personality style that goes along with narcissistic personalities. In the most direct way, Narcissists have an exaggerated and overwhelming sense of self-importance. They themselves are the only important people in their own lives. Others, even intimate relationships, are of less or even no value. Furthermore, they can be so concerned with their own selves that they will often show disdain or be constantly negative toward others, rejecting others as irrelevant, or as one patient of mine regularly referred to others, as “plebian.” Narcissists have very little trust of others and can treat others cruelly, even brutally. Should a Narcissist feel that he or she is being criticized they will not become upset, but enraged. Anything that threatens his or her own view of themselves as being the smartest, most successful or most beautiful can cause the narcissist to have a major negative reaction. Narcissistic individuals, such as Steve, who we discussed in Chapter Two, will park in handicapped-parking areas without giving it a second thought. Should they receive a ticket for parking there they will curse the officer and tear up the ticket. Their rationale? The officer just does not know who they are or how important they are. Narcissists also have a tendency to blame others. One situation that seems to be universally common in clinical situations is how a Narcissistic patient will turn their spouses who are seeing a therapist against that therapist. In another classic pattern, Narcissists will attempt to blame others; they will even blame their own therapists for their drug abuse or wanton spending of money, and never look at themselves or their own actions. I have been involved in more than one situation where Narcissists have sued their own attorneys and threatened to sue judges when they have lost a case. After all, the Narcissist is never wrong—it is others, who have always made the grievous error. I recently attended a party where approximately 15 couples were celebrating their friends’ anniversary. One of those in attendance—we’ll call her Mary—was clearly narcissistic. Aside from the obvious behavior of not singing along when everyone else sang “Happy Anniversary to You” to the celebrating couple, she also left the room when the gathered friends spoke about their relationships with the celebrants. In any conversation that Mary participated in at the party, she refocused the topic to herself. One interesting exchange I overheard had to do with Mary daughter’s school success. One couple, very proud, and maybe just a bit boastful, was talking about how their daughter won a full four-year scholarship to an Ivy League university. Mary

44

Chapter Four

would not respond in any fashion to this other couple. What she did say was that her daughter had won a four-hundred-dollar stipend, which Mary called a scholarship, for one semester, to an art school. You may argue that Mary has a strong reason to be proud of her daughter’s success, and that is absolutely true, but again, the intensity of the reaction is the key to the diagnosis. Mary’s own sense of self was so grandiose that she could not acknowledge anyone else’s success. And, to top it off, toward the end of the evening when everyone began to help clean up, Mary and her husband left without saying goodbye. Her husband did not try to convince her to stay; to the contrary, he appeared agitated and bored most of the night and was happy to leave. He showed signs of a Borderline Personality Disorder.

BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER The most frequently diagnosed personality disorder is the Borderline type. The name derives from the fact that people with this disorder seem to have a combination of symptoms that are common to both neurotic and psychotic disorders and, hence, this disorder occupies a border between those two major categories. The diagnostic criteria for a Borderline Personality Disorder are “a pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affect, and marked impulsivity beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts as indicated by five (or more) of the following: 1. Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment; 2. A pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation; 3. Identity disturbance (markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self); 4. Impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g. spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating); 5. Recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures or threats, or self-mutilating behavior; 6. Affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g. irritability or anxiety usually lasting a few hours); 7. Chronic feelings of emptiness 8. Inappropriate intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g. frequent displays of temper, constant anger); 9. Transient, stress-related paranoid ideas or severe disassociative symptoms.”

I Love You, I Hate You, I Love Myself: Narcissists and Borderlines

45

Some of the features of Borderline Personality Disorder are very similar to certain aspects of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), the behavioral problem most associated with schoolchildren that have difficulty focusing or paying attention. Included in both Borderline and ADHD features are poor focus on one’s inner sense of self, difficulties in relationships, impulsivity, anger, mood shifts and a false or exaggerated sense of achievement. The two diagnostic categories are, however, very different. Borderline people are extremely sensitive to rejection and often react with a sense of rage. Thus, it is not uncommon to see a borderline individual abruptly end a relationship. Individuals with ADHD may do the same things in their relationships but the intensity and instability are qualitatively different. Despite the overlapping of certain symptoms of Borderline Personality Disorder and ADHD, they are clearly distinct disorders. One significant characteristic of Borderline Personality Disorder is the intensive fluctuations between warmth and closeness in relationships and aloofness and distance. And, as we have seen, the impulsivity that Borderlines evidence can exist in any number of important life areas. Essentially, individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder cannot sustain any close or stable emotional commitment. As a result, and rightfully so, the Borderline individual will often complain of feeling abandoned. At times, these individuals display an intense need to connect and at other times, they will immediately revert to a sense of rejection both to others and to themselves. They also have a need for control. These factors combined can cause the partner of a Borderline to feel that the relationship is constantly “on the edge.” They feel pushed to their absolute limits. And in spite of the tension, or possibly even because of it, the Borderline will demand an intense amount of reassurance and affection. Perhaps the most indicative and also most confusing part of Borderlines’ relationships is their ability to be in a relationship while simultaneously being emotionally detached from the object of their affections. They seem to be able to both love and hate the same person intensely, all at the same time. Among the many individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder that I have worked with over the years, certain patterns of behavior, even specific actions, seem to be repeated. I have seen borderlines send friendship cards to people they have dated only once that on the outside read something like, “I would like to bare my soul to you.” The inside of the card reads “—and other things, as well.” Another example of a behavior that I have heard about several times occurs when a Borderline woman invites her date home for the very first time. She then states that, she is feeling tired and goes to her bedroom. In her bedroom, she will undress and get into her bed. She will wait a few minutes and then call to her date. If he has left, she will never speak to

46

Chapter Four

him again, for he has abandoned her. If he comes into the bedroom and sees her, and responds sexually to her very overt overture, she, more likely than not, responds explosively, denying that she ever intended to invite him to have sex with her. She will say, “I am just going to sleep. Leave me alone. Get out.” If you are in a relationship with an individual who has a Borderline Personality Disorder, you feel that you are in constant turmoil, on a continuous roller coaster of moods, and you are. In my office practice, I have had Borderline patients who have left notes on my car windshield at all times of the day or night. They have followed me to my home. They have sprayed their perfume and cologne in my waiting room as a reminder for me to think of them. And they have exhibited myriad other “on the edge” behaviors, usually with the justification that they want me not to forget about them. “After all,” they say, “you have so many patients. I want to be the one you remember most.” Several Borderline patients have volunteered to act as agents on my behalf and on many occasions have overstepped bounds with radio and television talk shows by claiming to represent me. They have even called the shows and tried to book me as a guest. Whenever the situation requires that I confront the behavior of an individual with Borderline Personality disorder, I run the risk of telling them that I do not love them anymore—for that is how they perceive it. They do not see that their behavior is being addressed. Rather they see any criticism as an attack against them. It can become so extreme that there is no like or dislike, no wrong or right. There is only love and hate. At one point, when I told a Borderline patient to please stop attempting to represent me, that I was professionally embarrassed when the radio station called me directly and asked that I tell my “agent” to stop calling there, she first began to cry and then, almost instantly, she became explosively enraged. She stood up, yelled at me that I was an ingrate and that she would never speak to me again. When I tried to point out to her that she was not a professional agent, and that I did not employ her on any level, but that I was her therapist she kicked a wall and stormed out of the office. She did not return my phone calls, did not show up for her next appointment, and was apparently telling co-workers that I verbally abused her. Three weeks later, she showed up in my office without an appointment, complacent, asking to be “taken back.” Once again, I will make the point that not everyone who has some of the characteristics of a personality disorder has a full-blown case of it. There are varying degrees and intensities. But, as you are probably beginning to see, there are patterns of similarities between individuals with these personality styles that draw them together.

I Love You, I Hate You, I Love Myself: Narcissists and Borderlines

47

FORMING AN ECCENTRIC BOND Individuals with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder have a sense of entitlement that; is very much distorted. In any relationship, the Narcissist constantly needs to be at the center of attention. The Narcissistic person demands much from his or her partner but can give very little in return. This form of emotional immaturity requires bonding with a partner who can tolerate the limited level of maturity that the Narcissist has to offer. To do so, requires that the partner’s own level of maturity remain very poorly developed. A male Narcissist will marry a female Borderline because she, too, is emotionally immature. He, in turn, can tolerate her intense pain and the instability she exhibits in relationships because when he is not involved in his own immediate narcissistic needs he tends to view himself separate, apart and alone from the world anyway. It then becomes very easy for him to distance himself from her intense moods. For Narcissists, intimate, warm, close relationships tend not to exist. When they do, they are limited in number and are viewed as transitory. A relationship with an individual who has Borderline tendencies serves to validate the Narcissist’s view of relationships. I am reminded of a couple, where the husband, a Narcissist, always believed that his wife, a Borderline, was good for him because she had very shapely legs and always wore short skirts and dresses. When I asked him why this was so important to him, pointing out that the length of her clothing was blatantly promiscuous; his response was that “she draws attention to me.” She fulfilled his need for narcissistic attention. Borderlines have an intense need to connect emotionally and physically. This need, however, does not last. The Borderline personality, therefore, requires that their partners respond to them immediately when they suddenly develop any need. It seems as if persons who are Borderline are on a perpetual quest for the perfect love. Narcissists come closest to meeting this need because Narcissists can display love for themselves that is excessive and all consuming. The Borderline individuals hope to share in that emotion. At the first hint of a conflict in a relationship between an individual with Borderline tendencies and a Narcissist, both withdraw; both become angry— even vindictive; both are intolerant and blame the other; and neither will take any action to improve the situation. They both destroy relationships primarily through the withdrawal of trust or the relationship completely. As we have seen in Chapter Three, relationships are chosen for a variety of reasons including similarities in personalities, fulfillment of a fantasy, level of comfort, expectations, and the ability to accommodate and compromise. For Narcissists and Borderlines, many of these reasons exist. As we are also

48

Chapter Four

beginning to see, there are many commonalties in their personality types. While Borderlines will be attracted to Borderlines and Narcissists to Narcissists, Narcissists and Borderlines will be attracted to each other because each tends to fulfill the other’s fantasy: the Borderline by drawing attention, the Narcissist by having an overwhelming amount of self-love. “Level of comfort” is a relative term for individuals with a personality disorder, but in this case, it clearly works because it ties in with a lack of trust, which both types have in relationships and both types tend to expect from relationships. Clinically, the relationship between a Borderline and a Narcissist seems to make sense. How does it work in the real world? Some examples: Evelyn and John, both in their mid 40s, had been married for 17 years when they were referred to me. The referral was originally for John, who was seen as being very depressed and hypochondriacal. At the very first meeting, it was clear that there was a deeper problem than depression, something more characterological in nature. John, this outwardly mature, well-dressed, articulate individual, would not come into my consultation room without his wife. He slowly and deliberately told me about how she drove him to my office and would take care of him should he have an attack while we spoke. Evelyn sat as close to him as any person could without actually sitting in his lap. She kept murmuring statements like “poor baby,” and gave me very angry looks if she did not like the questions I asked. It did not matter if the questions were innocuous ones; what mattered was how Evelyn perceived them. Ultimately, after describing his symptoms to me, which tended to confirm a diagnosis of a mild depression that had only recently begun, John began to speak about his work. Up until approximately three months prior, John had been a very successful electronics salesman. He had earned a large sum of money for the last 15 years and felt that he had nothing to be concerned about for his future. His wife worked as a local government clerk and was employed in that position for close to 25 years. They had no children. Both were college educated. John had a Bachelor’s degree in liberal arts and Evelyn a Master’s degree in education. Evelyn, however, never used her degree. Apparently, the electronics industry had begun to change in the three years prior to John’s referral to me. John did not keep up with the changes. When I asked him why, his response suggested that he believed that because he was so successful, his position was “untouchable.” Unfortunately, within the last few months he had been proven wrong. For the first time in years, his sales had begun to drop. His reaction to that, which was for him a very critical event, was not to begin an education into this new era of sales in his field, but to see it as a blow to his self-esteem and his life style. He began to stay home from work feigning a headache, stomachache or an unspecified chest pain. When he had been on top in his field, John had felt no threat to his well-be-

I Love You, I Hate You, I Love Myself: Narcissists and Borderlines

49

ing. He never missed a single day of work and always felt healthy. The moment there was a sign of a hole developing in the armor of his narcissism, he immediately began to deteriorate. The first evaluative session with John and Evelyn yielded many areas of concern and questions for me to pursue with John. Yet there were even more issues between the two of them that were troubling me. Among them were items related to the lack of social relationships they both reported. The fact, that despite speaking about a great love for children they chose to have none. They both reported a horrible relationship with their own parents as well as with their in-laws. They also had few friends and never went out socially with others. At the second session, the choreography remained exactly the same. John would not enter into the consultation room without Evelyn and Evelyn sat right up against him. When I attempted to find out more about their social relationships, John responded that he had no time for people who were “not at my level. And, there are few people who are. So I have business relationships.” Evelyn added, “You really can’t trust people. They’ll only take advantage of you.” I pursued the issue of children. Both responded that they had wanted children. No, there was no problem with infertility. They “just never got around to deciding when. We were always too busy.” At one point during this session, Evelyn changed the topic to her clothing. “Did you notice that I always wear bright-colored blouses?” Evelyn’s question was striking in its inappropriateness. But even more striking was John’s reaction. He smiled broadly. This was the first time I had seen his smile. His comment was telling and narcissistic. “I like the fact that she draws attention to herself. She’s really hot!” The session ended with my making specific suggestions to help John reorient himself to developing goals and responding to current and future needs. We made a follow-up appointment and I expected to see him in a few days. The very, next morning I received an urgent phone call from Evelyn. Thinking that John had possibly become even more depressed, I called back immediately. “No, John is okay. He even went off to work with a smile today, and he said that he would get information and sign up for that course you spoke about with him. I called about me. I hate him. He is not a nice person. He never was. He is just like everyone else. He is selfish and couldn’t care less about me.” Evelyn spoke in a very negative manner about John. I cut her off after just a few minutes by saying that we could discuss these issues if she attended the next session. She said she would, but in typical Borderline fashion, she did not come along. John came alone. He had known that Evelyn and I had spoken on

50

Chapter Four

the phone, but Evelyn told him that we had had a “session” on the phone. She also told John that I agreed with everything she said. I explained to John that I spoke with her for only a few minutes and that Evelyn had agreed to attend the next session to discuss what was troubling her. John asked if he could use my telephone to ask her to come to the office since they lived only a few minutes away. I consented. John called, using the speaker option on the phone. This is the exchange that took place: John: “Hi honey. I’m calling from the doctor’s office. I love you.” Evelyn: “I hate you!” John: “That’s okay. You can’t hate me. You love me because I love me.”

I thought he slipped and asked him about saying “I love me.” He said that it wasn’t a slip. “It is like a joke between us.” John had many of the symptoms diagnostic of a Narcissist and Evelyn of a Borderline Personality Disorder. John was only interested in the pursuit of status and achievement and his level of ambition was not realistic. He had no investment in anyone else’s emotions and at times not even, his own. He could, therefore, tolerate Evelyn’s on again - off again Borderline-type relationship with him because the only emotions of concern to him were his own. Evelyn held on tightly to John because in spite of his self-indulgence, his intensity for himself remained a beacon for her. It was something she envied and felt she could obtain vicariously through life by being married to John. By the way, Evelyn refused to come to the session. Treatment of John’s depression lasted only several weeks. His depression lifted quickly. But when John improved, Evelyn suddenly became very depressed. Like many Borderlines, she became angry with the therapist for not anticipating her needs, and refused to get treatment. After a few weeks, John reported that Evelyn was doing “just fine. She goes through these things when she wants attention.” In another case in which I was involved where the referral was for marital counseling, Alice and Tom followed a similar pattern of Narcissistic and Borderline behaviors. Yet they felt totally comfortable with one another despite the many serious problems they both brought to their relationship. They, also in their 40’s and married almost 20 years, had in Tom’s words “a nothing marriage.” Alice called it a “platonic relationship.” I often refer to marriages like this as a platonic marriage. Alice and Tom had two grown children, but, except for the first three to four years of their marriage, there had been no sexual relationship between them. Tom’s response to why this was the case was almost unbelievable. “I have myself. I have no other needs.”

I Love You, I Hate You, I Love Myself: Narcissists and Borderlines

51

After the very first session, I asked to meet each of them alone. At her individual session, Alice talked about how much she hated Tom. When I asked her why she stayed with him, she looked at me incredulously. “I have no place to go, believe me.” This comment led to a long discussion of the many extramarital relationships she had over the years. “None of them led to anything because all men are animals.” This classic Borderline behavior of withdrawal of love and hope for fulfillment in an extramarital relationship is what kept Alice in her marriage to Tom. She had the Borderline ability to be in a relationship with Tom while simultaneously being detached from him. Tom, in his individual session, was deeply pessimistic about people in general and family in particular. He was insensitive not only about his wife but also about his two children and his co-workers. He did state that he was involved in the Brotherhood at his church. When I asked him questions about his church involvement, hoping to find a connection for trust of others, Tom indicated that he did this purely out of a sense of obligation and rarely attended functions or meetings. When I brought Alice and Tom back together at our next meeting, I asked them why they felt they needed marital therapy at this juncture, since apparently they had had marital difficulties for many years. Both responded that they did not really have marital problems; they just did not like one another. What they wanted help with was making plans for the future. Now that their children were grown, Tom felt they no longer needed the house in the suburbs—he wanted to move into the city. Alice wanted to stay where she was for several more years, not because she had friends here, but because change frightened her. Tom wanted the place in the city that was “right for a man of my status.” Despite the lack of warmth between them and the disdain and dislike they described for each other, Tom and Alice, very much alike, remain together fulfilling a need in each other. Despite complaints, both Narcissists and Borderlines rarely take action to change. They tolerate the things about which they complain the most, in part because it fulfills their need for either self-aggrandizement or fluctuations of feelings.

TREATING A PERSONALITY DISORDER The complaints of Borderlines and Narcissists are tolerated by themselves because these complaints help define who they are to themselves. It is very difficult for Borderlines or Narcissists to change. They have to be willing first to see that the problem is within themselves and not perpetually elsewhere. Both of these personality disorders are thought to be somehow

52

Chapter Four

related to having experienced critical abusive early relationships, usually with parents. Narcissists; are thought to have had parents who were constantly dissatisfied and negative. They, therefore, are supercritical to negative criticism and have a very strong need for approval. If that approval is not forthcoming, they blame the other and find a way to boost self-esteem for themselves. Studies of Borderlines seem to show that parents who were either verbally or physically abusive raised them and there is, also a high rate of sexual abuse reported among individuals diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder. Additionally, some parents find it very difficult to allow their children to grow up and become independent. In severe cases of this behavior, the children can develop borderline tendencies. There are some studies that show a link between negativistic and impulsive behaviors and low levels of a brain chemical called serotonin. Treatment of these disorders thus requires a combined approach of individual and group therapy, and possibly, medication. While Borderline and Narcissistic Personality Disorders seem to be deeply entrenched, after many years quite a few of the individuals with these disorders tend to function fairly well, particularly with each other. In severe cases, treatment is very helpful, but the changes that are made in therapy may offset the balance in the marriage. Thus, for example, if a Narcissist begins to show more warmth, the Borderline spouse may become less trusting and fend off any emotional advances. Nevertheless, with a concerted effort and combined therapies, these individuals can make changes that are helpful to themselves and each other.

SUMMARY In this chapter, we looked at how individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder are attracted to, and maintain relationships with those who have Narcissistic Personality Disorders. We have seen that “like attracts like,” so that Borderlines may marry Borderlines, Narcissists may marry Narcissists, but Borderlines and Narcissists may also join due to the closeness of fit. Also noted were the similarities between certain aspects of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Borderline Personality Disorder. It would therefore, be reasonable to assume that individuals with ADHD can also fit the equation for the “like attracting like” with Borderlines and Narcissists. And finally, we also looked at some key examples of comfort levels in relationships, fantasy, fulfillment, expectations and the ability to compromise and accommodate.

Chapter Five

Lean on Me, I Need Immediate Attention: Dependents and Histrionics

In the previous chapter we looked at how “like attracts like” for two types of individuals, those with Borderline Personality Disorders and those with Narcissistic Personality Disorders, we must remember that personality disorders are defined as enduring patterns of experience and behavior that are markedly different from the cultural norm. This is what makes it a disorder—the qualitative, extreme, even pathological difference from the norm. We all have some components of a disorder but we are not all pathological. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, we will continue to focus on evident examples of personality disorders. This will help us see how the traits of certain individuals cause them to be attracted to others with similar traits—“like attracts like.” In this chapter we will look at examples of individuals who suffer from Dependent and Histrionic Personality Disorders. DRAMA AND FEAR Before we explore the diagnostic criteria that help us to define Dependent and Histrionic Personality Disorders it would be helpful to look at a few people who, by their behavior, might be classified as being Dependent or Histrionic. Reba is a woman in her mid-thirties. She has been married for eight years and has two young children. She works about four hours a week as a bookkeeper’s assistant and has no hobbies or interests beyond her well-defined responsibilities at home and at work. Reba is married to a man she claims is often indifferent to her, but it was he who finally convinced her of the need for therapy. Reba reports that she is often uncomfortable around people and feels best when she is with her husband. When describing herself she often switches back to her husband and makes comments such as “He always 53

54

Chapter Five

makes the right decisions. Without him I just would not know what to do.” When I asked her if she liked her job, she responded, “Not really, but I could never change it.” When I asked her why she was unable to change jobs, she could give no specific reason. It was very difficult to get more definitive information directly from Reba. In the last few minutes of our first session, Reba began to ask me several questions and almost all of them revolved around my impression of her; Reba’s questions were tinged with the anxiety of not being approved of by me. Did I think she had a serious problem? Did I think I could help her? Did I think her husband might separate from her or divorce her? What were the chances she might get better? Some of her questions took a more personal, even provocative form. Was she dressed appropriately? Did I think she had the ability to keep her husband satisfied? Next, she pulled out a shopping list and began to comment that she was not sure that the list contained everything she needed from the supermarket. She had reviewed the list with her husband earlier that day and he had “approved” it, but still she was not certain. I finally pointed out to Reba that our time was up and she would have to leave. Reba stood up very slowly and, at a snail’s pace, made for the door. I asked her if she would like another appointment. Her response was “I’ll be back whenever you say.” I offered her an appointment for six days later. Reba said, “If you tell me to, I’ll be back tomorrow.” Later that day, Reba’s husband called. I happened to answer the phone, and in a single breath he rushed this comment to me: “I know you can’t talk to me about her but let me just say that she never, ever, makes a decision on her own, and she is totally dependent on me, her mother, her sister, her boss and anyone else who happens to be around. Oh, and if you need me I’ll be glad to come in with her for a session or two.” From Reba’s presentation and her husband’s confirmatory description it seemed quite clear that, in addition to a depression, Reba had a Dependent personality. Whether or not Reba’s personality was to the point of meeting all the criteria of a disorder was not immediately clear. More interesting than Reba’s behaviors and personality was the day I met Reba’s husband who came to a session with her. He was dressed in a flamboyant yellow sports coat with a red-and-yellow ascot and silver-tipped cowboy boots. While I thought that his initial phone call was rushed; because he was calling from work and had little time to speak, what I found was that Jack always spoke that way. His speech was pressured, and while Reba was dependent, Jack was somewhat loud and dramatic. He spoke a great deal and tried to keep the conversation focused almost exclusively on him. In short, he displayed many signs of a Histrionic personality.

Lean on Me, I Need Immediate Attention: Dependents and Histrionics

55

In the last chapter, we discussed how personality disorders tend to cluster into one of three groups. The first cluster includes the odd or eccentric types of personalities. These are not discussed here. Borderline and Narcissistic are in the second grouping referred to as erratic, emotional or dramatic types of personality. Included in that same cluster is Histrionic Personality Disorder. The third cluster sometimes referred to as the fearful or anxious cluster, is where the Dependent Personality Disorder tends to group. Individuals with personalities that cluster here are indecisive, afraid of changes and easily hurt. Despite the fact that Dependent and Histrionic Personality Disorders fall into different groupings there are many similarities between them. It is true that Dependents will marry Dependents and Histrionics will join with Histrionics but the types and degrees of similarity are so strong that they tend to join as well.

DEPENDENT PERSONALITY DISORDER The DSM-IV, the manual used to categorize psychological and psychiatric disorders, states that an individual with a Dependent Personality Disorder is characterized by “a pervasive and excessive need to be taken care of that leads to submissive and clinging behavior and fears of separation, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: 1. Has difficulty making everyday decisions without an excessive amount of advice and reassurance from others; 2. Needs others to assume responsibility for most major areas of his or her life; 3. Has difficulty expressing disagreement with others because of fear of loss of support or approval; 4. Has difficulty initiating projects or doing things because of a lack of selfconfidence; 5. Goes to excessive lengths to obtain nurturance and support from others to the point of volunteering to do things that are unpleasant; 6. Feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone because of exaggerated fears of being unable to care for himself or herself; 7. Urgently seeks another relationship as a source of care and support when a close relationship ends; 8. Is unrealistically preoccupied with fears of being left to take care of himself or herself.”

56

Chapter Five

In addition to these features, individuals with Dependent Personality Disorder may be depressed and clinically anxious. What is most striking about Dependents is how easily they allow, or even encourage, others to take over major aspects of their lives. There is also; an overwhelming lack of self-confidence that can often be mistaken for a lack of energy or motivation. It is this low sense of self that contributes to a need they have to cling to and even become submissive to others. In addition, Dependents will volunteer to do tasks that are clearly undesirable just to maintain another’s affections. Dependents also frequently belittle themselves and their abilities. Such individuals have so much difficulty accepting a compliment that they may cry if someone says something positive to them; they may act, even feel, as if they have never before received a compliment. One of the interesting paradoxes is that Dependents can, in certain situations, act in assertive, even aggressive ways. This is most often observed when a Dependent person is pursuing someone to be dependent upon. In particular, the needs of a Dependent are presented as complaints about lifestyle, social network or illness. They often have many physical complaints but it is difficult to discern how real some of the pains and ailments are. Often they are simply techniques to find someone to care for them. Treating one 60-year-old woman for many years marked my clinical experience with an individual suffering from a full-blown Dependent Personality Disorder. She would bring another list of complaints that she felt she needed help with to every session. Some of her listed items were medical, some psychological, but most were social. How to act with a brother or an aunt, “What should I say to my mother when she says to me that I bought the wrong type of orange juice?” Even more striking was the fact that, despite having had a driver’s license for many years, she would not drive a car. Wherever she went, and whenever she needed or wanted to go somewhere, she would rely on her husband or a friend to drive her. There was no physical or medical reason she could not drive, she simply chose not to. And, her husband, despite the horrible faces he made at her whenever she asked him to drive her, never seemed to actually mind it. It even seemed like he encouraged her to ask him. Another woman I was seeing who had a Dependent Personality Disorder was able to tell me that she married her husband because she knew he could take care of her “forever.” At the point that he had some minor business setbacks, she became so fearful that she began psychotherapy treatment. She admitted that before seeking treatment she called her in-laws and begged them to guarantee that they would make sure to take care of her financially should her husband’s business fail. Not long after she started treatment I happened to run into her and her husband at a formal dinner party with close to 700 guests. In my mind, this cou-

Lean on Me, I Need Immediate Attention: Dependents and Histrionics

57

ple stood apart from the other guests for two reasons. Whenever I saw them, the woman physically clung to her husband and would not let go of his arm or hand, so much so that when he went to the men’s room she stood outside and waited for him by the door. The other reason this couple stood out was likely evident to everyone at the event. Although, she was dressed, as were all the women, in a long evening dress, stylish and appropriate for the occasion, he wore a black tuxedo jacket, but, his pants were blue jeans, and he wore a T-shirt underneath his jacket. His behavior was highly indicative of someone with a Histrionic Personality Disorder.

HISTRIONIC PERSONALITY DISORDER The word Histrionic means theatrical or dramatic. Individuals who display aspects of this disorder used to be called hysterical—hysterical not in the humorous sense, but in the sense that individuals with the disorder exhibit an excess of emotions and do so to an extreme. The DSM-IV lists the following diagnostic criteria for diagnosis of a Histrionic Personality Disorder: “A long-standing pattern of excessive emotionality and attention seeking beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: 1. Is uncomfortable in situations in which he or she is not the center of attention; 2. Interaction with others is often characterized by inappropriate sexually seductive or provocative behavior; 3. Displays rapidly shifting and shallow expression of emotions; 4. Consistently uses physical appearance to draw attention to self; 5. Has a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic and lacking in detail; 6. Shows self-dramatization, theatricality and exaggerated expression of emotion; 7. Is suggestible (i.e., easily influenced by others or circumstances); 8. Considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are.” Individuals who are Histrionic also have signs of depression and anxiety as well as of physical complaints and of sexual difficulties. When thinking of Histrionic personalities I am reminded of Carly Simon’s song “You’re So Vain.” Individuals with a Histrionic Personality Disorder are emotional in the extreme. They have learned to use their emotions to manipulate people and

58

Chapter Five

therefore, often have shifts of emotion that may appear shallow or false. Their need for attention can make them so uncomfortable that they will dress in outrageous clothing or wear their hair in such unusual fashion, or even act in sexually provocative ways in public as an attempt to gain the attention they crave. This need for attention also makes the Histrionic impressionable. The Histrionic, is often the first to follow a new trend and will defend the trend with outrageous passion, until of course, the next fad arrives. As Carly Simon said in that song, vanity is an important aspect of this disorder to the point that these individuals lack emotions other than those that appear completely superficial. Histrionic individuals are self-absorbed and concerned only with style, not substance. Yet, like Borderlines, they are actually very needy and, as a result, often exaggerate their problems. Histrionic Personality Disorder is more often found in women than in men. Despite the Histrionics’ sexually provocative behaviors and apparently high levels of sexual self-esteem, women diagnosed with this disorder tend to have more difficulty with their sexuality and sexual gratification, they report lower sexual and marital satisfaction, and also report more fears about sex. A female patient whom I was seeing began her treatment in late spring. In addition to her anxiety disorder, which was the reason for the referral, I suspected either that she was Narcissistic or Histrionic. What caused me to focus on those possibilities was her constant talk of only herself, despite my trying to find out more about her family. Her emotionality was also a key. She rapidly shifted from tears to laughter and back again. The very provocative clothing she wore only added to the picture. As we went into the summer months, it became very clear to me that she had histrionic tendencies. Her clothing became skimpier, to the point where she once came to a session dressed in a bikini with only an open short jacket over it. I indicated that her attire, while appropriate for the beach, was not right for this setting. Immediately she began to cry, and through her sobs, attempted to convince me that she had read in a fashion magazine that this was indeed the new style. I began to confront her “take” of the latest fashions when she began to laugh and attempt to cover herself up with the skimpy jacket. “You’re probably right,” she said, “I’m going to go back to my fashion magazine. I probably misread it.” I told her that it was not necessary for her to become a specialist in fashion. After all, it was not her career, and she had never worked in that field. Her response was quite telling. She said, “If you don’t dress the right way you will never get the right attention.” But, she never dressed this way for her husband. He complained that for him, she would always go to bed in her sweats. Histrionic behavior is almost, always first exhibited by the individual’s overt actions, which draw glaring attention to them. First, of course, is the

Lean on Me, I Need Immediate Attention: Dependents and Histrionics

59

style of clothing, hair or make-up—always just a little different, and always flamboyant. Then there is the emotionality—always shifting, always intense but clearly an overreaction and always self-absorbed. Personality styles are not disorders but, as we have already said, degree and intensity vary from individual to individual. Aspects of histrionic and dependent behaviors are very similar, and it becomes clear how the two overlap and, thereby, attract.

VANITY AND DEPENDABILITY What are the behaviors and traits of someone who is overly vain, flamboyant and emotionally shallow, that is so similar to those of someone who is excessively dependent and cannot make a decision? He or she shares so much in common that it draws one to the other. Once again, let us review the highlights of Chapter Three. The following are the ways through which we choose a relationship: similar personalities; fulfillment of a fantasy; comfort level; expectations for a relationship; and the ability to compromise and accommodate. When these variables are factored into attributes of personality, it becomes totally clear, why Dependents and Histrionics often bond. Individuals who have a Dependent Personality Disorder suffer from low self-confidence and an intense desire for social interaction. This is very similar to the attention-seeking behavior often found in Histrionics. Histrionics crave constant attention and without it become very uncomfortable. They, too, have a low sense of self that contributes to their need for attention. Dependents fill this need for fulfillment of a fantasy by always being there for their Histrionic partners. Dependents are known to make frequent requests for attention by regularly complaining. Histrionics have similar personalities in that they often complain as well. Both Histrionics and Dependents complain about illness; sometimes imagined, sometimes real; and poor social relationships. In social situations, individuals who are Dependent are very suggestible and extremely sensitive. Histrionics, too, are impressionable, gullible and, as a result, can be very dependent in certain situations, particularly when they need social attention. Further, Histrionics alter their personality and behavior from one situation to the next in order to look more attractive and get the attention they crave. Dependents will make themselves so passive that they also appear to do anything for attention. Histrionics are shallow but highly emotional. Dependents present themselves as highly emotional and, as a result, they also appear emotionally limited.

60

Chapter Five

The need for attention and dependency on individuals who can provide unending attention to one another is a thumbnail sketch of Dependents and Histrionics. Examples will serve to clarify these relationships. Al, a small-business owner, was 28 years old when he came to me with his wife of three months, Helen. Helen, also 28, was an attorney in a large law firm. They came to see me because they both realistically decided that if their marriage were going to work they would need marital therapy early on. The fact that Helen and Al had been married so short a time and had met only eight months before their marriage is not as unusual as it sounds, and many couples realize that counseling may help smooth the rough early stages of relationship and choose to enter into therapy for a brief time. But there were aspects of Al and Helen’s situation that made the necessary interventions more pressing and intense. At the first session, both partners came dressed in business clothing. Both wore dark suits, and Helen’s was especially modest. Her skirt was long, the sleeves on her blouse came down just past her wrists and she buttoned the blouse all the way to the collar. She wore her hair was up in a severe bun. Still, she was strikingly attractive and Al clearly knew it. Al was the more talkative of the two and he provided the primary background information. His parents had both died when he was seven years old, one from an illness, the other in a car crash that Al thought might not have been accidental. He and his two siblings were raised not by relatives but by an outwardly kind but very demanding, rigid, religious foster family. At the age of 14, he ran away, but continued to keep in touch with them. Somehow he managed to begin a business and had built it quite successfully. Prior to his relationship with Helen, Al had only one serious girlfriend, with whom he had lived for six years. He did not stay with her because “She just could not give me the kind of real attention I need. When I met Helen, I knew she had that ability. She is intense and I can, or at least I thought I could, depend on that.” Al also began to tell me about Helen’s family and background. Helen was one of eight children in a “born again family.” Her parents, according to Al, seemed to be very loving and devoted, but Helen disagreed with that assessment. “The only time they pay attention to you is when you can grab it from them.” As the first history-taking session was winding down, Al made the following comment: “I am very proud of her. But you see the way she’s dressed now? That’s not the way she went off to work this morning. I don’t know when she changed her blouse or put up her hair, but when she went to work this morning she was wearing this red silky see-through thing with a very low-cut bra underneath. In some places, she acts so totally modest, you’d think she was a nun in a convent; in others she’s like Demi Moore in

Lean on Me, I Need Immediate Attention: Dependents and Histrionics

61

Striptease. And, that’s only part of the reason we are here. From our wedding day until now, I have gotten at least one and as many as five phone calls a day saying that she’s fooling around with someone at work.” Al was close to tears. He reached out to take Helen’s hand and she put her arm around his shoulder to comfort him. Because the session was just about over, I asked Helen briefly if what Al was saying was true. “Yup,” was her curt response. It was accompanied by a smile. At the next session, Al came dressed in dress pants and a cut-away sweatshirt. Helen was dressed in an outfit similar to the one she had worn to the previous session. I picked up the questioning where we had left off. Yes, “the rumors are true,” she said. She does “fool around,” but “not sexually,” she answered. I asked her what that meant. “I do things to get attention. I flirt with the partners, or I will bend over in a meeting. I do what I have to do.” Why, I asked, did she feel the need to act that way at work? “Because, you know, the only time people pay attention to you is when you get them to. The best way to get them to is by dressing and acting sexy.” Helen continued to rationalize her actions at work but then went off in a slightly different direction. “He needs me to love him,” she said of her husband, “and I do. I show him love all the time. But I need to be loved by lots of people”. With considerable prodding, she went on to describe other ways that she drew attention to herself. Her pattern of behavior was highly provocative, not just sexually, but in a variety of ways. She “didn’t mind” if she got people very angry with her, “because that’s one way they’ll always remember who you are.” She would walk into a nail or beauty salon without an appointment, yell at the receptionist for “losing” her appointment, and create such a stir that she would be taken immediately. When I asked her about her feelings towards her family, her responses never exceeded two or three words. The depths of the emotions Helen expressed were shallow at best, despite her overt behaviors. Al, on the other hand, was visibly needy, clingy, and dependent. He depended on her acceptance and she had someone who always clung to her. Therapy, in Al and Helen’s case, took the direction that they wanted it to. Neither wanted to change too much, so they began to learn how to live with and accept Helen’s hysterical outbursts and the ways she drew attention to herself. Al, with time, became less insecure and, thereby, less anxious and Helen’s moodiness abated. The case of Elaine and Phil provides a similar view from a different perspective. Here it was Phil; who was Histrionic and Elaine who was Dependent. They had been married for nine years and had six children. What triggered the referral was a visit to the family by one of Elaine’s relatives. This cousin thought that Phil was acting abusively toward Elaine and insisted that Elaine call a therapist and get help, and Elaine called me. She came alone to

62

Chapter Five

the first session. She was an attractive woman, well groomed, but she looked at least ten years older than her chronological age. She did describe a husband who sounded as if he could be verbally abusive to her and her children. She insisted that he never was physically aggressive and that he professed his love for all, constantly. She and Phil had met while Elaine was in college. “Was Phil a student there, too?” I asked. “Not really,” Elaine replied. I asked her to explain what she meant when she said “not really.” Elaine responded, “He spent weekends in the dorm rooms at the school. He didn’t take courses, but he had student I.D.—I don’t really know if he even graduated from high school.” “What attracted you to him?” I wondered aloud. “He was just so there! He was always with people. Always had somewhere to go, someone to be with. And he always had time for me. He also did not mind that I have these scars on my face.” I looked carefully at her face. She was not wearing much makeup and still I could see no scars. So I asked her, “What scars?” “Oh, I have a few tiny marks. You know, from my acne days.” At first, the response she gave led me to wonder if Elaine might have a body dysmorphic disorder. People who have this disorder are very much preoccupied and distressed by an imagined physical defect. Elaine saw me staring at her face so she continued, “I never really made an issue of them, and they are so small. It was Phil, who pointed them out to me. At one point he said something like, ‘I can love you in spite of them.’ I’m sure if you look closely, you can see them.” Elaine went on to tell me that she worked as a teacher and Phil had any number of jobs as the mood struck him. After cataloging the last eight jobs Phil had worked at in the previous four years, it was clear that he did retail sales, almost exclusively with and around women. Phil came with Elaine to the next session. When I opened my door to the waiting room, he jumped up to greet me. He wore a big smile, and in a very friendly voice said, “I don’t believe in this psycho nonsense but I’m humoring the wife. Can I call you Mike?” His words, actions and mood were obviously inconsistent. Phil responded to every question I asked in such a way that I was unclear as to what his response meant. For example, “Elaine tells me you’ve had several jobs in the past few years. Can you tell me why?” “Sure, Mike. The little lady is always so concerned about where I am and what I’m doing and if I can bring home the bacon. I tell her, ‘everything’s fine—don’t be so worried’.” “Elaine and I have discussed the fact that you raise your voice and berate your family. Is that true?” I asked.

Lean on Me, I Need Immediate Attention: Dependents and Histrionics

63

“She is always so sensitive, so needy. I have lots of friends. Wherever I go, I have lots of people who adore me. She is so emotionally needy. She just reads everything wrong.” While I attempted to continue to ask probing questions, Elaine became more and more withdrawn and quiet. At one point, she put her hands over her face and began sobbing silently. Phil either pretended not to notice or was so engrossed in trying to impress me that he did not notice, so I turned my attention to her. When he saw me do that, he said, “Oh, no need for that,” he said, “She does this a lot,” and immediately returned to the topic he was discussing. Phil did begin to show signs of abusiveness at subsequent sessions. If Elaine said anything that he took to be a criticism, regardless of how innocuous it might actually be he would become rude and brusque with her, telling her that she was ugly and even at one point calling her a slut. At another point, he threatened to divorce her if she would not let him be and then immediately began to speak about his intense love and desire for her. I informed Phil of the state laws regarding domestic violence and of my responsibility to report him, if I felt there was any reasonable cause to suspect that he was abusive. He promptly swore that he would control himself. And, with time he did control his abusiveness and intensity at home. However, therapy enabled Elaine to take a careful look at herself. Within a few months, she began to realize how dependent she was on Phil and how much she did not want to be so. Ultimately, it was Elaine, who brought up the issue of divorce in earnest. She said, “When my parents divorced and I was seven years old, I realized that the pain was just too intense. So I decided that I would find the right person and protect myself, and my children, from that heartache. To do that I made myself so dependent on his approval that I can’t see who I am anymore, especially since he is so totally vain and irresponsible.” Phil sat and listened to what Elaine said but made no motion to say anything in response. In fact, he behaved almost as if it had not been said. Within a few seconds, he attempted to draw the conversation back to himself; Elaine sat totally quiet for the rest of the session. The very next day Elaine called. “I refuse to deal with his hysterics anymore. And I will not allow myself to be his punching bag. He is shallow and so self-centered that even though it looked like he was giving me what I needed, he really, never did. I have to get out of this for all of our sakes.” It took her a while to end the marriage, but end it she did. She retains some of her dependency but now is aware of it and constantly works hard to overcome it. Phil, on the other hand, refusing to acknowledge a problem, goes on with his life. The only difference is that he lives alone.

64

Chapter Five

THERAPY As we have discussed in the previous chapter, personality disorders are not easy to treat. They require long-term therapy using a variety of different modalities. More importantly, in order for treatment to work the individual with the personality disorder has to acknowledge that he or she have a deeper problem beyond what usually brings them to treatment (their anxiety or depression). Histrionics are quick to engage in psychotherapy and often exaggerate their problems. Because Histrionics draw so much attention to themselves, they are difficult to treat in family or group psychotherapy. They are also shallow, and therefore, insight-oriented work is generally ineffective. While Histrionics can display suicidal-type behaviors, medication is generally not effective for them and hospitalization is not warranted unless they clearly have intent to attempt suicide. Individuals with a Dependent Personality Disorder pose other problems in psychotherapy. Long-term individual therapy, the most effective treatment for personality disorders, must be used gingerly in the case of a Dependent, since it may inadvertently reinforce a dependent relationship with the therapist. Thus, therapy for a Dependent; is often focused upon short-term solutions to specific life problems. Most Dependents do not complete therapy as self-reliant and independent people. If, however, they can become more assertive and focused upon specific areas of their life needs and respond by themselves to those needs, therapy may, then be considered successful. Individuals with a Dependent Personality Disorder are quick to point out how anxious they are. In most cases, their anxiety is related to specific situations where they feel unable to make decisions. Nevertheless, because of this anxiety they often take a great deal of sedative medication. Therapeutically, all, the medications do is to calm them; they do not help them cope with life issues or help them develop a greater sense of independence. As we have seen in our last two examples, marital therapy for Dependents and Histrionics can have two very different outcomes. However, in the case of Elaine and Phil, Elaine’s insight into her needy character is what ultimately led to the outcome of divorce. Not all Dependents want to focus that much attention on their own personalities and Histrionics, by definition, acts so shallow as to ignore their own abilities for insight. If a Dependent becomes needy, his or her Histrionic partner may channel energy into finding others to provide her or himself with attention. Similarly, if a Histrionic begins to act less dramatic and less needy of attention, the Dependent partner may feel that she or he is no longer there for the other. As you are beginning to see, treatment of personality disorders can be complex. Treatment of personality disorders is, however, possible, and with the correct effort, it can be successful.

Lean on Me, I Need Immediate Attention: Dependents and Histrionics

65

SUMMARY This chapter gave us the opportunity to look at how the needs, expectations, fantasies, and ability to accommodate to one another draw those with Histrionic and Dependent Personality Disorders together. Histrionic individuals dress and act emotionally and need to be the center of attention. They can act in a seductive or provocative manner and go out of their way to draw attention to themselves. Similarly, Dependents have an intense need to draw attention to themselves and to rely on someone to be there for them. In this manner, “like attracts like” for these two personality disorders. Changing the pattern of dependency and interaction can change the outcome of the relationship in all situations but is especially pronounced in cases where a dependent individual becomes more independent.

Chapter Six

Understanding Yourself: Developing Your Own Personality Profile

In Chapter One we began to look at the definition of personality—what it consists of and how historically it has been measured. Most recently, it has been found that there are at least five primary factors that comprise personality. According to the most current five-factor model, the factor of Neuroticism refers to levels of emotional adjustment and stability on facets of anxiety, hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and vulnerability to stress. The Extroversion factor of personality, which comprises facets of social and interpersonal interactions, includes warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement-seeking and positive emotions such as happiness. Openness to Experience is the third of this five-factor model and it is this factor that includes facets of ability to enjoy fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, trying new activities, intellectual curiosity, and openness to examine social and political views. Another factor that taps into social and interpersonal actions is Agreeableness, which includes facets of trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance or the degree to which the individual is mild-mannered, modest, and displays tender-mindedness. The last of the five factors, Conscientiousness, is a measure of organization and motivation and includes the facets of competence, order or neatness, adherence to moral obligations or dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, and the ability to reason things through before acting by deliberation. When using these five factors as the model for personality, the scales most often used to assess personality are the NEO Personality Inventory Scales. If one follows a 16-factor model of personality, the 16 Personality Factor (16PF) test to assess personality is used. Similarly, other theoretical orientations having variations of these approaches tend to use different tests to assess personality. 66

Understanding Yourself: Developing Your Own Personality Profile

67

All of the scales and tests mentioned above require specialized training to administer, score, and interpret results. Nevertheless, many individuals are constantly taking “personality tests.” These so-called “personality tests” appear in magazines and are available on the Internet. Often they are not reliable measures and, while they are referred to as personality tests, they are not real measures of personality. They are popular because they help people to take a more careful look at—and thereby categorize—themselves according to the items supposedly assessed by the scales. Unfortunately, if not taken at face value they can be misleading. Tests such as “Do You Know What Your Man Really Wants?” “Assess Your Sensual Intelligence,” or “How Knowledgeable are you Really About Getting Along With People?” are misconstrued to be accurate measures of personality. At best, these scales are measures of a very limited area of knowledge and may have no relationship at all to attitudes, attributes, behaviors, or any of the underlying building blocks of personality. Still, individuals seek ways to assess their powers and those of their mates with scales that are not complex, yet are valid and reliable measures of personality. RELIABILITY IN MEASUREMENT In this chapter, we will look at some ways of assessing ourselves without the overall sophistication necessary to completely evaluate a personality in depth. There are a variety of scales that, allegedly measure aspects of behavior and personality. Some have a surprising amount of versatility. To truly understand how a test of a concept such as personality works requires some sophistication with psychometric theory. In its most basic form, psychometric theory states that when a test is considered to be valid it measures what it is supposed to. Thus, for example, a test of mood does not measure IQ, wrist strength, or the ability to show love. It measures mood. Reliability, perhaps even more important than validity, is a measure of consistency. Does the test measure what it is supposed to in a consistent way? Assuming all things being equal, if I measure a person’s mood now and her mood has not changed in a week’s time, her score should be close to the same next week. Scores could almost never be exactly the same due to random environmental factors. To the degree that the scores are similar from one administration to the next, the test displays a form of reliability, in this case test-retest reliability. Reliability and validity are measured in different ways, but they are always stated as statistical probabilities or correlations with other measures. No scale is totally valid or one hundred percent reliable. The standardized tests of personality, such as those mentioned before, have all met and exceeded minimally accepted standards for validity and reliability despite the fact that the concept of personality may be seen as difficult to completely explain. Thus, in the

68

Chapter Six

scales that are predicated on 16 factors, reliability and validity measure personality according to those 16 factors. The same is so for the scales based on five factors. The scale presented in this chapter is not designed to be a rigid test of personality. It is only designed to help the reader begin to develop some insight and understanding into whom, they and their mates or spouses are. The traditional standards of validity and reliability were not used as the primary criteria for the development of this scale, rather, as in the first stage of most psychological test designs, questions were created using a theoretical framework, in this case the five-factor model.

THE TEST The following scale, or test, has 35 yes-or-no questions. There are seven questions in each of the five theoretical factors of personality: Category 1 Neuroticism; Category 2 Extroversion; Category 3 Openness to Experience; Category 4 Agreeableness; Category 5 Conscientiousness. Because there are no standardized norms for this test it is not considered to be a psychometrically reliable or valid scale. This test is designed for easy self-administration and scoring, and while the five factors are used to categorize items and concepts, this scale should not be viewed as a test of personality. It is a scale that will give you some insight by quantifying, to a limited degree, who you are and how you and your partner relate. To take the test, just answer yes or no to all 35 questions. Category 1 is based on Neuroticism; Category 2 is based on Extroversion; Category 3 is based on Openness to Experience; Category 4 is based on Agreeableness; and Category 5 is based on Conscientiousness. When you finish taking the test, ask your partner to do the same. Scoring will be shown after the test.

CATEGORY 1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I tend to be a moody person. (YES/NO) I often anger easily. (YES/NO) I tend to be nervous and jittery. (YES/NO) I tend to act quickly, without thinking things through. (YES/NO)

Understanding Yourself: Developing Your Own Personality Profile

69

5. I am uncomfortable among strangers. YES/NO) 6. I feel as if people can hurt me very easily. (YES/NO) 7. I tend to withdraw from social obligations. (YES/NO)

CATEGORY 2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

I am always energetic. (YES/NO) I do not mind being in a noisy, active environment. (YES/NO) I tend to be optimistic about the future. (YES/NO) I often get my way with others. (YES/NO) I have many friends. (YES/NO) I am very cheerful. (YES/NO) I am a warm, sensitive, caring person. (YES/NO)

CATEGORY 3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Art and culture play an important role in my life. (YES/NO) I have highly intense relationships with my friends. (YES/NO) I am always interested in trying new activities. (YES/NO) I am a very sensitive person. (YES/NO) I have a vivid imagination. (YES/NO) I would describe myself as intellectually curious. (YES/NO) I am always willing to re-examine my social and moral values. (YES/NO)

CATEGORY 4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

I am a person who can easily forgive and forget. . (YES/NO) I tend to trust others. (YES/NO) I like people to view me as humble and modest. (YES/NO) I can be generous to a fault. (YES/NO) I am sensitive and sympathetic. (YES/NO) People always trust me. (YES/NO) I take pride in my sincerity. (YES/NO)

CATEGORY 5 1. I am a well-organized person. (YES/NO) 2. I have the motivation to realize my goals. (YES/NO)

70

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Chapter Six

Despite being distracted, I complete my tasks. (YES/NO) I am a highly ethical and moral person. (YES/NO) I am known as a diligent person. (YES/NO) I am a very competent individual. (YES/NO) I think carefully before acting. (YES/NO)

Now that you have completed the test, count the number of “Yeses” in each category. Look at the scoring sheet in Table 6.1. For each “yes,” make a mark in the corresponding box. Always score the zero boxes, which indicate that you have no “yes” answers in a particular category. Recall that Category 1 corresponds to Neuroticism or anxiety; Category 2 to Extroversion; Category 3 to Interest in or Openness to new experiences; Category 4 to Agreeableness; and Category 5 to Conscientiousness. Let’s use the following example of how to use the scoring sheet: Mr. X checked “yes” 3 times in Category 1; twice in Category 2; 5 times in Category 3; once in Category 4; and not at all in Category 5. Mr. X’s scoring sheet would look like Table 6.2. Mr. X’s profile is suggestive of someone who has an average amount of neurotic anxiety (Category 1); is slightly below average in his degree of extroversion (Category 2); has a high degree of interest in trying new experiences (Category 3); is not especially agreeable (Category 4); and does not see himself as at all conscientious (Category 5). His wife, Mrs. X also took the test. She scored as follows: In Category 1 she checked “yes” 4 times; twice in Category 2; 5 times in Category 3; twice in Category 4; and once in Category 5. Mrs. X’s scoring sheet would look like Table 6.3. Mrs. X’s profile also provides some insight into how she views her own level of personality functioning. Her responses indicate an average level of neurotic anxiety (Category 1); a low degree of sociability and extroversion Table 6.1.

Scoring Sheet

Category 1 2 3 4 5 0

1

2

3

4

Number of “Yes” Answers

5

6

7

Understanding Yourself: Developing Your Own Personality Profile Table 6.2.

71

Mr. X’s Scoring Sheet

Category 1

x

x

x

2

x

x

x

3

x

x

x

x

x

x

4

x

x 2

3

4

5

5

x

x 0

1

6

7

Number of “Yes” Answers

(Category 2); a high level of willingness to experience new things (Category 3); a below- average level of agreeableness (Category 4) and a low level of conscientiousness (Category 5). When Mr. X’s and Mrs. X’s profiles are laid over one another, there is a striking degree of overlap. As you can see, the scoring sheet helps you to develop a profile of personality in the five categories. In the Table 6.4, Scoring Sheet, Mr. X’s scores are labeled with “x” and Mrs. X’s scores are labeled with “o.” Both, Mr. and Mrs. X achieved the exact same scores for Category 2 and Category 3, extroversion and willingness to experience new things. Their scores on Category 4 (social agreeableness) and Category 5 (conscientiousness) are separated by only one response. In Category 1, while there is a discrepancy of two responses, both, Mr. and Mrs. X still scored very close to each other to the extent that they see themselves as somewhat anxious individuals. Does this mean that Mr. and Mrs. X are almost totally compatible Table 6.3.

Mrs. X’s Scoring Sheet

Category 1

x

x

x

2

x

x

x

3

x

x

x

4

x

x

x

5

x

x

0

1

2

x

x

x

x

x

3

4

5

Number of “Yes” Answers

6

7

72 Table 6.4.

Chapter Six Mr. X and Mrs. X’s Combined Scoring Sheet

Category 1

x o

x o

x o

2

x o

x o

x o

3

x 0

x o

x o

4

x 0

x o

x o

5

x 0

x

0

1

2

x o

o

o

x o

x o

x o

3

4

5

6

7

Number of “Yes” Answers

because they have such similar profiles? It is possible. Mr. and Mrs. X have been happily married for almost thirty years, and both state that they have a lot in common but also work hard to maintain their marriage. To look at compatibility and scores on this five-category scale requires that we take a look at other scales and their patterns.

SAMPLES AND PROFILES It is important to stress again, before going forward, that the scale used here is not necessarily a psychometrically reliable or complete measure of personality, in that testing of psychometric soundness has not been performed. This scale is simply for purposes of introduction to the concept of how personality is measured and whether there is some compatibility in scores between spouses and close friends. It would also be wrong to presume that this scale is a fair measure of personality disorders. In fact, to assess whether or not an individual has a personality disorder requires an intensive personality and clinical assessment. This assessment requires the input, supervision and actual involvement of a mental-health professional—someone with experience in the area of psychological disorders. There has been an attempt by both researchers and clinicians to match scores on reliable measures of personality with diagnoses of personality disorders. Certain personality tests can help contribute to determining if an individual has a personality disorder. Those tests are usually very extensive and

Understanding Yourself: Developing Your Own Personality Profile

73

are more pathology-oriented than is a general scale of personality. Nevertheless, there tends to be some agreement that, using the five-factor model of personality, profiles scores of individuals with a personality disorder will follow certain forms. For example, someone with a Histrionic Personality Disorder will usually score high on measures of self-consciousness and extroversion and low on the measures of self-discipline. A Narcissist will score high on measures of feelings of vulnerability and fantasy and low on measures of agreeableness. Borderline individuals score very high on measures of neuroticism and low on agreeableness, while Dependents score high on anxiety, warmth and agreeableness, and low on aspects of conscientiousness. To see how our scale worked, we gave the scale that you just took to several groups of individuals, spouses, and friends. Some had been diagnosed with personality disorders, others not. Many were just people who thought it might be fun to take a look, in a quick, short way, at how they classified themselves. I chose the following few as interesting examples of couples’ profile responses. Jane and Bill have been very close friends for almost seven years, they met as seniors in high school. They are talking about marriage, but plan to wait to get really serious until they both finish their education. Jane is in the final stages of medical school and Bill just finished law school. Both come from similar socioeconomic backgrounds and, interestingly, both are first-born children in their family. Neither one has been in therapy for a mental illness and, both see themselves as very secure. Jane’s scores are marked as “o” and Bill’s scores are marked as “x” in Table 6.5. Jane and Bill’s profiles are highly similar. Both score high in the same categories (3, 4, and 5) and low in the same categories (1 and 2). They speak of themselves as highly compatible and look forward to a happy life together. Table 6.5.

Jane and Bill’s Scoring Sheet

Category 1

x o

x o

o

2

x o

x o

x o

x o

3

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

4

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

5

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

x

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Number of “Yes” Answers

x

o

7

74

Chapter Six

David and Dana make an interesting couple. They plan to get married sometime in the future, but have no definite idea when this will occur. David is 42, and was married once before and has a 13-year-old daughter. He has been divorced for nine years. He calls his divorce an amicable one and says of his former wife that they were not compatible and that they just grew apart. Dana is 43 years old. She was married twice before and has two children, a son who of nine and a daughter who is seven. Dana first married when she was 20 years old and the marriage lasted only a year. Dana said she knew after the first week that it was a mistake. She married again three years later. The children came from her second marriage, which lasted for 15 years. She is not sure why her second marriage ended, but she awoke one morning to find her husband and all of his belongings gone. Dana and David met at a singles’ group for parents. They found that they had careers in the same field, and, therefore, shared a common interest and future goals. David’s scores on the scale are marked with an “x” and Dana’s are marked with an “o” in Table 6.6. Dana and David both scored themselves very high on the categories that measure extroversion and conscientiousness. On the other three categories, however, their profiles appear to go in the opposite direction. David scored low on categories 1, 3 and 4 while, Dana scored higher on those three categories. Perhaps it is a good idea for them not to rush into marriage, but rather to see how much they actually do have in common. As another example of a couple’s profile, I selected a husband and wife who had just entered marital counseling. Both Nancy and Derek say that their marriage is doomed, and that they are pursuing counseling only to alleviate

Table 6.6.

Dana and David’s Scoring Sheet

Category 1

x o

x o

o

o

o

o

2

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

3

x o

x o

x

x

x

4

x o

x o

o

o

o

5

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Number of “Yes” Answers

7

Understanding Yourself: Developing Your Own Personality Profile

75

any sense of guilt when they finally do divorce. They have been married seven years and have no children. They both state that they do not enjoy the same activities and have even taken separate vacations for the last two years. When asked why they married, both Nancy and Derek responded that it was an impulsive act. They met at a club, enjoyed the same music and, as Derek put it, “Before anyone knew what was happening we started living together.” Nancy added, “I did not believe in living together without the right papers, so we got married.” Nancy described herself as a “happy-go-lucky, easy-going person.” She said Derek was just “too serious” for her taste. Derek, on the other hand, said that Nancy was “too irresponsible,” and just “too outgoing” for him. He wanted a wife who had a “stronger sense of direction and commitment to long-term goals other than just socializing and having a good time.” Nancy’s scores on the five categories are marked with an “o” and Derek’s are marked with an “x” in Table 6.7. The overlapping scores on the scoring sheet tell the story of Nancy and Derek’s ability to get along. The only category where their scoring is the same is in Category 4—both rank themselves as highly agreeable. In every other category where Derek ranked himself high, Nancy ranked herself low; and where Nancy ranked herself high Derek ranked himself low. The next profile is that of a couple where the wife entered therapy because of an anxiety disorder but was also found to have a Histrionic Personality Disorder. Lori is in her mid-30s, married for 12 years to Andrew. They have two children. Both are professional workers in the health care field. Lori describes her marriage as “very tumultuous at times, but loving.” She entered therapy because she thought she was developing a pattern of panic attacks in

Table 6.7.

Nancy and Derek’s Scoring Sheet

Category 1

x o

x o

x o

x

x

x

x

2

x o

x o

x o

o

o

o

o

3

x o

x o

x o

x o

4

o

o

o

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

5

x o

x o

x o

x

x

x

x

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Number of “Yes” Answers

7

76

Chapter Six

social situations. Part of her anxiety was due to the fact that, she was not always the center of attention. But, she also showed shallow emotions and was extremely melodramatic in her self-presentation. Lori also described herself as highly suggestible and she often discusses relationships with people who were mere acquaintances as if they were her oldest and dearest friends. Andrew was not in psychological treatment, but Lori described him as “passive,” allowing others to make decisions for him, but a person she called “very agreeable” who would go to great lengths to gain her support, no matter what the issue. In other words, Andrew had many of the characteristics of a Dependent person. Their scores on the scale are marked with the same pattern— Lori’s as “o” and Andrew’s as “x” in Table 6.8. On the categories of Neuroticism, Extroversion, and Conscientiousness, Lori and Andrew scored exactly alike. These two people were quite similar in a variety of ways and that was reflected by the pattern of scores they each produced. Similarly, a couple who had come into treatment for marital counseling were asked to fill out the five-category scale because both complained of feeling tense and believed the tension was due to their marital conflicts. Eleanor and Ray have been married for 27 years. They are the parents of two children, both of whom are now out of the house, their oldest child, a daughter, was recently married, and their son is completing college. They say that their marriage is a strong one, but Ray complains of Eleanor’s impulsivity. “She can go on spending sprees like there’s no tomorrow,” he says. He also stated, “Eleanor’s moods can change radically in just a few minutes. She can get really irritable, but then it passes pretty quickly.”

Table 6.8.

Lori and Andrew’s Scoring Sheet

Category 1

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

2

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

3

x o

x o

x o

o

o

4

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

5

x o

x o

o

0

1

3

4

5

6

2

Number of “Yes” Answers

x o

7

Understanding Yourself: Developing Your Own Personality Profile Table 6.9.

77

Eleanor and Ray’s Combined Scoring Sheet

Category 1

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

2

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

x

3

x o

x o

x o

x

4

x o

x o

5

x o

x o

x o

o

o

o

0

1

2

3

4

5

o

6

7

Number of “Yes” Answers

When speaking of Ray, Eleanor states, “I think he loves himself just a little too much. He thinks he’s the world’s smartest man.” She also says, “No matter how much attention I give him it’s never enough, and he isn’t warm back to me, either.” While Eleanor and Ray’s comments were not sufficient for a diagnosis, it certainly sounds as if Eleanor, by Ray’s description, has some borderline characteristics and, conversely, Ray, by Eleanor’s description, has narcissistic tendencies. Using the same format we have throughout this chapter, Eleanor’s scores are indicated by “o” and Ray’s by “x” in Table 6.9 These profiles indicate that both scored exactly the same on Category 4 Agreeableness, and were within one answer on Categories 1, 2 and 3. The only category where the two profiles were discrepant was on Category 5, Conscientiousness, Eleanor sees herself as highly conscientious while Ray does not see himself that way. WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN? We have just looked at a scale that is broadly based on the five factors of personality. This scale is not a clinical test nor does it have statistically reliable or standardized norms. What the scale can do is help give you a clearer and better understanding of how you view yourself. After all, you respond to the test on your own. This scale also allows you to look at a profile of your scores. What makes it even more interesting is that you can overlay your friends’ or spouse scores to see how much alike or different you are.

78

Chapter Six

Now that you have your scores, and are looking at profiles, what does it all mean? Remember, this scale does not measure your full personality. It does give you some interesting insights, though. Category 1 tells you something about you and your spouse or friend’s level of anxiety or neuroticism. Category 2 gives you some insight into how outgoing or extroverted you and your friend or spouse is. The third category questions how open you both are to new experiences. The fourth category helps you both to see how agreeable and sociable you are, while the fifth category is a measure of how both of you view your levels of conscientiousness and dedication. Are you and your friend or spouse compatible? This scale does not answer that question, at least not directly. Remember, our basic premise is that “like attracts like.” Well how much alike should you be? A good rule of thumb is that to be compatible, you and your partner should have approximately 60% of these categories in common. How can you measure whether you have that 60%? This scale has five categories. If you score the same on three of the five categories, then you have 60% agreement! This scale cannot guarantee compatibility. There are too many other important variables that impact on compatibility, but it is interesting to see how much agreement you have in terms of how you view yourself on the five categories. By the way, achieving similar scores does not mean exactly the same scores. If you score 5 on a category, and your partner scored 4 or 6, those scores are highly similar. In fact, scores can be similar by profile. That can mean that the scores are separated by more than one response but the profiles are very similar. For example, as can be seen in Table 6.10, the couple has an exactly similar profile. Both the male and the female score on the same patterns, higher on some categories and lower on others. Even though the exact category scores are not the same two overlying profiles strongly suggest that these two individuals view themselves in much the same way. They have higher levels of anxiety, agreeableness and conscientiousness and lower levels on willingness to experience new things. These two profiles were taken from a couple a week before, their wedding. Of course, it would be interesting to see what their profiles would be like after 20 years of marriage, assuming their marriage lasts that long. It is difficult to predict the future, but in our time, when it has been reported that all too many marriages have the potential to end in divorce, it is important to try to find a spouse who is highly compatible. If you have similar personalities when you start your marriage, it only seems natural to assume that you have a greater chance for marital success over time. In Chapters 8 and 9, we will look at other ways to enhance the likelihood of having a successful marriage.

Understanding Yourself: Developing Your Own Personality Profile Table 6.10.

79

Scoring Sheet

Category 1

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

x

2

x o

x o

x o

x o

x

x

3

x o

x o

x o

x

x

4

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

x

5

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

x

0

1

2

3

4

5

x

x

6

7

Number of “Yes” Answers

In the next chapter, we will look at the concept of co-dependency and how it impacts on marriage. Co-dependency is a term originally used to describe the partner or spouse of someone suffering from a substance abuse disorder, and individuals who were co-dependent were thought to be “enablers,” helping, through their own behaviors, to unconsciously reinforce their spouse’s addictions and negative behavior. If, “like attracts like” in a marriage, then the co-dependency issue is one that may be superficial, and may not be useful in understanding the bonding that occurs in relationships.

Chapter Seven

Co-Dependency Myths

Lisa was a very attractive 30 year-old woman with an excellent career as a medical doctor. What brought her to therapy was her fear that she would never find the right man to marry and settle down with. She had dated many men, had had a few serious relationships and was once even engaged. Her big fear, however, was that, as she put it, “all the men I find myself liking have worse problems than I.” Lisa was raised in a family where the father had explosive outbursts, which occurred at least two to three times a month. She could not understand the cause of her father’s rage until she went off to college. There she dabbled with alcohol, marijuana, and on occasion, amphetamines. Once when she was under the influence, her father happened to call her on the phone. He knew immediately that she was using and he told her so. The very next weekend he made the trip out to visit her and spoke with her. Lisa said, “It was a revelation. My father admitted that he had a drinking problem. Before he finished telling me, I knew that his outbursts occurred only when he drank. He told me, and he even begged me, not to allow myself to get the way he did.” After she had the talk with her father, Lisa stopped using any and, all chemical substances not prescribed by a doctor. She was so determined to make her life successful that she also began to attend Al-Anon meetings for children of alcoholics. “I can relate to those people. They understand me. I understand them. There is a bond we all seem to have.” Lisa so very much enjoyed attending meetings and socializing that she did not realize the paradox she had gotten herself into. She referred to the other group members as “those people,” but also spoke of a special bond with them. Lisa also did not realize that the same paradox applied to the men she dated. When I asked how she met the men she eventually dated, she re80

Co-Dependency Myths

81

sponded, “I mostly meet them at my meetings.” When I pointed out to her that she met men who were addicts, recovering addicts, or children of addicts, she was truly stunned. “I never realized that. I mean, I know but never realized it.” was Lisa’s response. Not only did she not realize that on a very concrete level she was dating “those people,” but she was not seeing the more subtle implications. As we worked in therapy to get to a deeper level of understanding, Lisa commented, “I guess that means that I am co-dependent. The only person I’ll feel comfortable with is someone like me but who has a problem like my father.” I asked Lisa if that was her definition of co-dependency. “I guess so,” was her response. CHARACTERISTICS AND DEFINITIONS Lisa’s response set me in search of a clearer understanding of what I once took for granted as the meaning of the term “co-dependent.” Individuals who are co-dependent are thought to have very low self-esteem, so much so, that they almost never focus on their own needs and always focus on the needs of another, usually the spouse or partner. Despite this, persons who are co-dependent seem to always, put their own desires first. They revel in their ability to make situations appear normal and often believe they can control any, and all of these situations. Yet they live from crisis to crisis, and often are under a constant barrage of stress and exhibit many symptoms of depression. Denial is their main defense mechanism, and a co-dependent individual will avoid taking responsibility for his or her own behaviors, it is always “someone else’s fault.” These are generally the characteristics of a person who could be described as being co-dependent. Citing characteristics, however, is not the same thing as defining what codependency is. And this is where the problem arises, for where there appears to be a consensus as to the definition of co-dependency, it is more appearance than reality. And, as you will see, the definitions are so broad and encompass so much that many different diagnoses can be included in the concept of codependency. Historically, at the point that the concept of co-dependency was first introduced, it was a term used to explain the relationship that a partner or spouse of a chemically dependent person had with that substance abuser. The relationship was usually a highly dysfunctional one leading to a recurrent pattern of behavior between the two where the spouse of the addict would be so overinvolved in taking care of the addict that he or she would take no responsibility for caring for his or her own real needs. At the same time, these actions would “enable” the addict to continue those self-destructive behaviors.

82

Chapter Eight

Co-dependent actually means going along with or being like the dependent person. Individuals who are chemically dependent substance abusers have outbursts of rage and unpredictable moods. They can also be embarrassing to be with in public, and may have serious legal and financial problems. Despite their many difficulties, most addicts can function fairly well for reasonable amounts of time. The co-dependent spouse or partner invests large amounts of energy into maintaining this appearance of “wellness” and covering up for the dependent’s negative periods and behaviors. In a classic co-dependent situation, the spouse will even help the addict to avoid facing the fact that he or she has a drug or alcohol dependency problem. This is often referred to as “enabling,” that is, enabling the addict to continue with his or her addiction by finding excuses for it or rationalizing it away. In line with this enabling, is the dependent’s own behavior of denial and avoidance. Thus, both partners deny that they have a problem. Much family energy is invested in covering up real feelings of hurt and anger and avoiding responsibility for fixing a problem that both the addicted person and the partner avoid, cover up, rationalize, or completely deny. In some cases, the co-dependent may want to deal with the problem but is too involved in ignoring real feelings and in acting to cover these feelings over. By definition, then, co-dependents are people who have problems in their most important relationships. They are always focusing on the needs of others and often ignore their own needs. They have difficulty expressing feelings that they have but focus all their energy on the feelings of others. Co-dependents tend to isolate themselves from outsiders for fear that they and their situation may be found out. When they are around others, they spend a great deal of time seeking approval and avoiding any hint of confrontation. They have notoriously low self-esteem and are extremely afraid of real or imagined abandonment. One of the reasons they stay in a relationship with an addict is their own fear of abandonment. Co-dependents are also said to confuse love and pity, they react before thinking and are addicted to the excitement crises tend to bring. If we take a careful look at the characteristics and definitions of co-dependency above and look at some of the research done, we find that the concept of co-dependency itself tends to lack validity for one important reason. Both the addicted individual and the spouse or partner as we will soon see, are selfdestructive. I am reminded of situations where a wife, who has severe asthma refuses to give up smoking. Her husband tends to drink too much but calls himself “only a social drinker.” He says, “She enjoys her smokes. To take them away would really upset her.” She says, “He needs his weekend drinks to relax.” Does this mean that they are co-dependent on each other, or more likely, that each has similar self-destructive and addictive tendencies? Fur-

Co-Dependency Myths

83

thermore, the concept of co-dependency has moved from a definitional one to a medical or disease model of illness-type behavior. When men and women who were children of alcoholic parents (those most likely to be labeled as codependent), were compared to others without alcoholic parents, only some of the women in the study were found to have a “distinctive dysfunctional attachment profile.” The results suggest that only some women with alcoholic parents fit some of the criteria used to describe co-dependent behavior. It was not true of all the women with alcoholic parents and was apparently not the case at all for men.

ANOTHER VIEW Let us take a more careful look at some of the definitions of co-dependency. Co-dependent people appear to find most of their meaning in life from making themselves indispensable to others. They isolate themselves from certain individuals who they find to be competent and threatening and busily seek approval from others. They avoid confrontation and are frightened by criticism and, most important are terrified by abandonment. If we look back at the criteria for diagnosis of a Dependent and Histrionic Personality Disorder, we find many of the same definitions. Histrionics express shallow emotions and are easily influenced. Dependents allow others to assume responsibility, have difficulty expressing disagreement with others, go to excessive lengths to obtain support and nurturance, often feel uncomfortable, urgently seek relationships and are preoccupied with fears of abandonment. As we can see, a codependent individual is probably better labeled and thereby defined as someone who has either a Dependent or Histrionic Personality Disorder. Similarly, the individual who is chemically dependent, may fit a better definition more in line with our present theme. Let us look again at the criteria for diagnosis of both a Borderline and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. A Borderline also has difficulty with abandonment fears, has an unstable sense of self, is impulsive in self-damaging ways, and has mood instability with inappropriate anger. The Narcissist has a grandiose sense of self-importance and believes that only special people can understand him or her. The Narcissist also requires excessive admiration, has a sense of entitlement, is interpersonally exploitative, lacks empathy, and is arrogant. When viewed from this perspective, the chemically dependent individual can be seen as having either a Narcissistic or Borderline Personality Disorder. This continues and further supports the contention that Borderlines attract Narcissists and Histrionics attract Dependents in the sense that “like attracts like,” and each is dependent on the other.

84

Chapter Eight

How Negativity Sustains a Relationship Louisa had been married to Jason for exactly three weeks when she called me for a joint appointment with her husband for a combination of what she called “therapy for me and my marriage. I just hope Jason agrees to come,” she added. Jason did not show up for the first session. I was able to get a very good history from Louisa. She is a successful speech therapist with a troubled past. When Louisa was aged two, her mother divorced her biological father, who probably had a severe emotional illness. In talking about her biological father, Louisa discussed having visited with him about once a month until he died, when she was about ten years old, of a liver disease. When a patient speaks about unspecified liver disease, the thoughts of a therapist trained to listen “between the lines” immediately go to one of two possibilities—cancer or alcoholism. When Louisa was five years old, her mother remarried. “My second father was not much of a father either,” according to Louisa. “He adopted me even before my real father died, but we never had much of a relationship. Ultimately, my mother threw him out, too, but that took until I was 15. He was mean—I guess you can call it verbally abusive—to me, and he never held a job for more than a month at a time. I used to come home from school at around three in the afternoon and he would be sitting in the living room with the television on, sleeping. He didn’t actually touch me, but I guess you could say he was sexually abusive. He always walked in on me in the bathroom or, when I was getting dressed. And he wouldn’t leave. And I was never allowed to lock the door.” I asked Louisa why her mother decided to separate from him. “She couldn’t take his behavior anymore but it was really my grandmother who told my mother to get rid of him. In fact, my mother said that my grandmother told her to get rid of my biological father because he was bad, too.” Louisa was describing a clear pattern of the Dependency of her mother that included marriage to two men who likely had Narcissistic and Histrionic behaviors as well as addictions. I went on to ask Louisa to describe how she met Jason, and what type of person he was. “We met at a party. He was working as a paralegal for a friend of a friend. It was not love at first sight, but there was some attraction. He was very pleasant and seemed kind. He said he was working in his current field as a paralegal until he decided what he really wanted to do with his life. I believed him. He was the right religion, the right age, even the right height, so I figured “why not!” Louisa went on to describe Jason in different ways. All of her descriptions led to the implication that Jason had Histrionic tendencies. Jason

Co-Dependency Myths

85

would not go to parties unless he knew everyone and felt that everyone liked him. He displayed rapidly shifting emotions. When she told of how Jason reacted at the time, she told him that they had an appointment with a therapist, Louisa said, “At first he cried, then yelled, then threatened and then cried again.” Louisa also described him as “easily suggestible.” “I thought I needed the approval from others to make a decision for myself, but Jason is so much worse. He changes his mind with everyone he speaks with.” Louisa went on, “More than anything else, he is a major hypochondriac. Every time he sneezes, without exaggeration, he demands I take him to a doctor for a throat culture and to check his ears.” I asked Louisa why if she knew him to be this way prior to marriage, she married him. “In the beginning I thought that I might just have no choice and maybe he could change.” “Why did you have no choice?” I asked. Louisa, with great hesitation, recounted another part of her story. “When I was about 25, I fell in love with a married man. We worked together for almost two years. In some ways I felt sorry for him, he said his marriage was horrible and his wife did not want children and he did. He was always late for his shift at the hospital where we worked and he said it was because he was arguing with her. Anyway, his life isn’t important. I got pregnant by him. At first, I didn’t believe it. I thought I was being careful, but I guess it was some sort of a slip-up. I was in the beginning of my third month of pregnancy when I was doing some work on a psychiatry unit as part of my training that I realized that in this case there was no such thing as a slip-up. I spent a lot of time doing some self-analysis, and I finally realized that I had this unconscious motivation. I thought that if I gave him the child he wanted I could steal him away from his wife. So I decided to get an abortion, and I did.” “Did you tell him about the child?” I wondered. “Yes,” she responded abruptly. “And?” “He pretended that I said nothing. He avoided me after that.” I spent some time pointing out to Louisa that she had some very real Dependent types of behaviors and that these behaviors were underlying some of the choices in her life. “I can see what you’re saying,” Louisa said, “applying more to my mother than to me. She got married twice to two men who just took advantage of her. The men she married were basically users.” “And the men in your life?” I asked. “Well, the other guy really did use me. He was an awfully good actor, but very shallow.” I pushed her “What about Jason?”

86

Chapter Eight

“Yes. I guess some of that’s true. Jason is a paralegal because that’s all he wants to be. I don’t think he ever even finished high school. The truth is I feel like he always lies to me, too.” Jason did show up intermittently for future sessions. With time, Louisa became stronger, and slowly, more independent. Jason did not want to change and he, in turn, became more hysterical, more behaviorally rigid. Louisa finally moved out. The example of Louisa and Jason shows how negative personality characteristics can perpetuate into a negative future if they are not worked on. Louisa’s mother apparently went from one bad relationship to another and Louisa had begun to follow the same pattern that her mother had set. However, if we were to use co-dependency as a model for this type of behavior it would cause us to miss several very important components in our understanding of relationships. First, and foremost, to say that Louisa’s mother was probably co-dependent is to miss a clearer understanding of what her relationships were all about. True, her husbands were both probably addicts and by all accounts she could be called co-dependent. Taking that approach and calling her so, however, would allow us to also label Louisa herself as co-dependent. After all, she was following her mother’s example. A more cautious approach would be to follow the “like attracts like” paradigm we have suggested throughout this book. At the very least (for the sake of argument) using a co-dependency model, people do not become co-dependent because they have a relationship with someone who is an addict; it is the other way around. People who are Dependent or who have a similar type of personality disorder are attracted to individuals who also have personality or characterological problems and flaws. And, the second point is that those who have personality deficits are more likely to have problems with addictions of their own. Point three is an extension of the first two—people thought to be co-dependent have many of the same characteristics of the addicts they are dependent upon. They are as addicted to their own dependent behavior as their addicted/personality-disordered spouses are addicted to their own behaviors. .

TAKING AN HONEST LOOK One of the arguments made by those in the co-dependency movement is that if you are a child of an addict it is almost inevitable that you will become codependent. As we have seen, co-dependency is just too broad a definition for what is more readily explained by an understanding of personality traits, characteristics, and personality disorders. Utilizing a co-dependency model may,

Co-Dependency Myths

87

therefore, lead to a pessimistic view of marriage. If Louisa were to believe that she would inevitably be a “co-dependent,” she would go on to believe that her entire life would be predetermined, she would have no choice but to marry an individual with addictive behavior. Louisa would also, by definition, be hypersensitive to the needs of others while excluding her own needs, be afraid to express her own feelings, and have a very strong need to please others. She would be terrified of being left, or abandoned by her most important relationships, and she would confuse love with pity. Some of these behaviors did clearly exist in her, but Louisa did not take long to develop a stronger sense of self and gain insight into her dependency needs. What was required of her was simply a desire to be honest—and Louisa wanted to be honest with herself. Sometimes the decision to take a long, hard look at oneself, honestly see and understand the flaws, and begin the process of change is a conscious decision. Other times, it is simply part of who the person is—part of their basic character. And, the fact that this often occurs further points to the shortcomings of the co-dependency model. Allison came to therapy just a few months after she began to experience increasingly frequent panic attacks. She had been married to Jake for two years when the anxiety attacks began and she wanted to deal with the problem as quickly as possible. Allison, in her late twenties, worked part-time and was going to school part-time to be a physical therapist. Jake was running his own business. What was most interesting about Allison was her history. She was clearly a child of alcoholics. Her father drank to the point where he became homeless. Every night, as far back as Allison could remember, her father would come home from work drunk. When she was four years old, her mother, according to Allison, “threw him out.” He had become a tremendous drain on the family. Many nights Allison’s father had nowhere to go, so he would sleep on the stoop outside their door. Allison vividly recalls times when her father would take her for a weekend visitation. On a Friday night he would come to pick her up sober—otherwise her mother would not have let her leave with him. Once he had picked up Allison, her father would drop her off with “some people,” usually a family she never knew. She would not see him again until Sunday afternoon when he would come back, and get her and take her home to her mother. When Allison was a teenager; her father would show up at the house when her mother was at work. He would beg to come in to shower and rest. There were times when she would let him do so, only to find that he drank while he was in the apartment. “He was so drunk,” Allison, explained, “that he thought the couch was a toilet, and when I was older this happened almost every time.”

88

Chapter Eight

Allison’s mother was a “social drinker.” She drank “only when she had a reason to,” Allison said facetiously, “like every Friday night or when she went to parties.” Allison did not realize how severe her mother’s problem, was until her mother remarried. Allison was then in her early twenties. “I visited her for Sunday dinners and I saw that every time she would finish a bottle of wine and then have two or three more drinks afterwards.” Allison finally confronted her mother “but it took a scare, a medical thing. She had liver problems. Her blood liver tests were off so much that she finally decided to stop drinking so much.” Given this history, Allison was sure to be a candidate for co-dependency, if the diagnosis was a legitimate one. That is not what happened. As Allison puts it, “In my late teens I started to date. With the way my life and my parents’ were, I could have done anything wild. I didn’t even go to school in my senior year of high school. How I graduated, I don’t know—with all that going on, the guys I went out with were all, like, ‘biker’ types, rough street toughs with no real future. I didn’t want that. I wanted more for myself, and my future family. So I decided, to go out only with guys who went to college. I never touched alcohol except for an occasional toast, and I got myself into college and found a great guy in Jake.” With that, Allison began to tell me a little about Jake and his history. They had met at a friend’s house. Jake came dressed in a preppy outfit. “He was the only one who wore leather only on his feet,” as Allison put it. She did not feel an immediate attraction to him, but “There was something I found interesting. It’s true that I did not like what brought him to the house, but in every other way there was something special.” What had brought Jake to Allison friend’s house was gambling. Jake was a numbers runner and had his own little gambling business. In Allison’s words, “His parents insisted he go to college. He did. But his parents never helped him out with money, so he got this little illegal business going. I hated the idea—I think he did, too, but it made a lot of money for him, so he didn’t want to give it up. After college he got this other business going and now he’s manufacturing and selling—gambling is completely over for him.” When I asked Allison why Jake gave up the gambling she answered, “I told him I wouldn’t marry him unless he gave it up. Besides that, I just knew he wanted to get past it just like I had to get past my own stuff.” In addition, therein lies a very important key: Allison knew, instinctively, just what she had to do to get her life in order, and she struggled to do just that. As part of that very honest process, she found someone who, like herself, had to struggle to get beyond a flaw in his own character. In short, she chose someone else with a spotty history, who also had a desire to improve. Allison and Jake

Co-Dependency Myths

89

both moved beyond their dependencies to create an ongoing reciprocally supportive life. As a young graduate student, I had a professor who once stated, “When a husband complains that his wife is lazy, check first to make sure that he himself is not lazy. But when a husband says his wife is wonderful, he’s probably a pretty good guy himself.”

KEEPING A RELATIONSHIP INTACT In spite of the definition of co-dependency, as we have seen, an honest, direct approach to relationships, where both partners are on the same wavelength, can result in true success and overcoming of dependencies. Let us take one more careful look at why co-dependency does not work to help us define what is wrong in negative dependent relationships. In fact, aspects of the definition of co-dependency may actually make for a better relationship. One of the key definitions of co-dependency is that the person who is codependent has an intense need to put others before himself. Clearly, anything taken to an extreme can be unhealthy, but isn’t it a good idea to be considerate to others? We are raised with sayings like, “it is better to give than receive.” As long as we give with the knowledge that we are not being taken advantage of, giving to others is not only good, it is also very healthy. And if putting others ahead of yourself is pathological, than all those in the helping professions suffer from the same illness. Co-dependents also, by definition, do not express their feelings. They tend to “stuff” their feelings down rather than honestly deal with them. Here, too, the definition leads us to question precisely what is meant. If we put our feelings ahead of everyone else’s, then we become completely selfish. Isn’t it wise to consider others? Another aspect of the definition of co-dependency is linked to self-esteem. Individuals who are co-dependent tend to seek approval from others. In order to maintain a good relationship the partners in that relationship need to have the other’s approval. Without that sense of reciprocal approval, a critical component of happiness is lacking. Co-dependents are afraid of abandonment. If you are in a warm, supportive, sensitive, caring, loving, reinforcing relationship, you should have no reason to be afraid of being abandoned. The purpose of this exercise in understanding the definitions of co-dependency is two fold. First, it is, once again, to show that the term is not sufficient to explain just where the problems in personality and relationships lie.

90

Chapter Eight

The other reason for this exercise is to help us to look at the honest need to work on the character flaws or personality deficits we may have. When a person with a Dependent Personality Disorder is married to another with a Histrionic Personality Disorder who is also an addict, the mixture can be volatile. The Dependent person will only become more dependent and needy and try in the only way he knows how to fix things—that is, by giving in, enabling, and becoming even more dependent. It is at this point that help is critical. Self-honesty is the first step. Hiding behind terms and phrases does nothing to assist in overcoming the critical problems that exist. As we have repeatedly discussed, “like attracts like.” However, what can we do when the attraction is unhealthy? Like everything else, it is a matter of degree. If the unhealthy component is so severe that it threatens one or both of the partners’ well-being, the relationship may have to end. There are, though, many levels in between a relationship that is doomed and a relationship that is perfect. Co-dependency, as it is popularly used, immediately implies that the relationship must proceed toward a negative end. We have seen that the term does little to help us define the problem the way the personality-disorder approach can. Therefore, in the next two chapters we will look at how to improve relationships by looking at what is important in a relationship and in marriage and then by further enhancing means of communicating.

Chapter Eight

The Keys to a Good Relationship

In several previous chapters, we spoke about relationships from a theoretical perspective, placing emphasis on personalities and, how corresponding personalities go together and blend. We have made the point that relationships are not like magnets—opposites do not attract. Rather, “like attracts like.” And the more alike the partners in a relationship are, the more likely there will be success in that relationship, at least initially. And remember, similarity seems to work best when it is in the 60% range. This chapter takes us to the next step, and is about how to enhance and work on what the two of you already have in common. It is also a chapter that describes some of the ways to make a good relationship grow even stronger. So, you find yourself married and you have plotted your personality profiles as shown above. It turns out that maybe your profiles do not quite match. This is not a reason to give up. There are some important things to do that can help relationships become stronger and grow. Much research has been performed on successful long-term marriages. Over and over again, when spouses are asked what makes their relationship good, among the several answers that come up regularly the one most often stressed is the inevitability of hard work. People married 40 or more years often say that the one thing that keeps their good marriage going in a positive fashion is the effort exerted to keep it going. That response, however, is predicated on the assumption that there is a basis on which to build and work. Sheila was physically abused as a child, and she married a man who was verbally abusive to her. Unconsciously, Sheila thought she would be comfortable with him, having experienced abuse as a child. In this situation, where her husband approached the relationship without any desire to change his abusive behaviors, there was little reason to believe that hard work on Sheila’s part alone could save the marriage or make it even slightly better. On 91

92

Chapter Eight

the other hand, if abuse had not been a factor in their relationship and both had similar personalities beyond any negative experiences, with the right type of hard work the marriage could have been very successful. As I mentioned in the Introduction, a woman who had been married for 13 years refused a referral to me because she remembered my questioning her motivation to enter into the marriage all those years earlier. She thought that I would say, “I told you so” if she came to me for marital counseling. This particular woman came from a very nurturing, somewhat introverted family with a highly traditional view of family life. She, herself, believed that that was precisely how she wanted to lead her life. However, she was marrying a man who was loud and extroverted. He wanted to “have fun” and go out three or four times a week, and had no interest in joining any religious or social organizations. His father had been married and divorced three times and he had lost contact with his biological mother. Clearly the two had very little in common. I am often asked if it is possible to predict the outcome of a relationship. My response is that, using personality as the basis, you can successfully predict outcome approximately 70 percent of the time—in a vacuum. What I mean by that is that we cannot discount the many other variables that impact on individuals and their partners. Some of these factors are psychological— such as whether or not your self-esteem is strong, how cooperative or competitive you are, your level of maturity, and whether your parents had a strong marriage on which your view of a relationship has been modeled. Other variables that impact on the success of a relationship are pragmatic. Level of education seems to affect whether or not a marriage will last. College-educated people are less likely to get divorced than individuals with a high-school education or less, or those with a post-graduate education. The 1950s family where a husband provided for the family finances while his wife was the homemaker now represents only about 10 percent of our society. The stress of having two wage earners in a family is one of the variables that impacts on the success of a marriage. Is there enough money to live on without going into debt? In addition, if both partners work, can they find enough time together to build the relationship and keep it strong? Still other variables are sociological and cultural. The more alike you and your partner are the more likely your relationship will be successful. Important differences in areas such as religion, values, and goals, can lead to conflicts that can be potentially difficult to resolve. What, in fact, keeps the partners of a marriage working together to maintain and strengthen the relationship? Research has shown that there are a few important components. A sense of dependency as measured by income, educational levels, occupational status, number and age of children and similar

The Keys to a Good Relationship

93

factors all contribute. The strongest influence for maintaining a relationship, however, is the sense of commitment the partners in the relationship feel toward their bond. One additional point—people who are married tend to be emotionally, even physically healthier on average than single individuals. Somehow, people who have a sense of commitment to one another tend to see that in commitment the relationship and work to continue to enhance their well-being. Let’s take a more careful look at some of the keys to success in relationships.

WHERE PASSION ENDS, LOVE BEGINS Among the statements made by individuals in successful, happy relationships as to how they have maintained a positive marriage are comments regarding the deeper values they place in their partner and the relationship as a unit. I once asked a 76 year-old woman about her marriage. She told me that it was the “absolute best thing in the world. Of course we have our disagreements, even our arguments,” she continued, “but we enjoy doing things together. We have a lot in common, but we also have our own interests and, most importantly,” she concluded, “we aren’t just lovers. It’s much more; much better. We are friends. We have always been very good friends and we work hard to maintain that.” Early in a relationship, there is a rush of excitement that sometimes masks all the other feelings that are basic to a strong relationship. This overwhelming rush is sometimes referred to as passion. We will discuss the meaning of passion below. First, a look at some interesting statistics about marriages. It has been well demonstrated that over the years of most marriages, marital happiness follows a U shaped curve. Most individuals, almost 100% of married people surveyed, report that in the first year of marriage they are “extremely happy,” or that their marriage is “excellent.” Somewhere between the second and fifth year of marriage the percentage of those saying they are happy begins to drop precipitously until it bottoms out around the tenth year of marriage. At that point only about 50% to 55% of married people report that they are happily married. With time, the percentage of those reporting a happy marriage slowly begins to rise. After 25 years, the percentage of those rating their marriage as excellent rises to between 60% and 70%. Two interesting side-notes to this data bear mentioning. Only a very small percentage of people report that their marriage is poor. In most studies the percentage is only around five percent, while a few studies show a slightly higher rate; that 10% of married people report a poor marriage. Also, men

94

Chapter Eight

seem to report higher rates of happiness in their marriage than women. Men married more than 10 years report marital happiness about 70% of the time; women, between 55% and 60% of the time. What these data indicate, too, is that there are measurable fluctuations in marital happiness and relationship success that can be related to natural, developmental changes in any, if not most, relationships. These changes are often due to the stresses of child-rearing, establishing careers, family relocation, and so forth. Yet, in spite of these developmental stresses, with time and effort and a deeper understanding of and commitment to the relationship, happiness re-emerges. In previous chapters, we explored how relationships can develop from a variety of different perspectives. If we believe that love at first sight is the true measure of long-term marital happiness, we are less likely to retain a sense of happiness once that initial passion diminishes. If the relationship develops first from a sense of compatibility and mutuality, the likelihood of long-term happiness is enhanced. This is true because while the initial passion may wane, the true underlying bond will not. Mutuality and compatibility seem to be most linked to personality. If you have compatible personalities and if you truly care for someone, the two of you can work together to enhance or rebuild passion for each other. I have used the term passion until now with the assumption that almost everyone has an innate understanding of the term. I would like to clarify it, though, at this point, so that no misunderstandings develop. Passion is most often linked to a physiological rush, an arousal of energy, including sexual energy, that gives one a sense of pleasure or euphoria and in a relationship is most often linked to sexual attraction. I have described passion in a way that tends to emphasize the biological, almost reflexive nature of what passion is. Defined in this way, passion is clearly different than the intellectual side of a relationship, which is based on a sense of commitment; and the emotional side, which is the true ability to share feelings with someone about whom you care. These two areas, commitment and sharing emotions, include the building blocks for a truly successful marriage. Individuals who are emotionally involved with another in the sense of having a deeper level of understanding and honesty are the ones who tend to have a great deal in common with their partners. As a result, they have the ability to develop a stronger devotion to one another. They become loyal, protective, and secure with each another. Most importantly, because they have so much in common with one another, especially including having compatible personalities, they have a greater tolerance for each other.

The Keys to a Good Relationship

95

It, therefore, follows that people who are the most compatible with each other, have more tolerance for each other, and are more willing to work with each other to get through the tough times, will have the most successful relationships. You will note that passion has not yet entered into this equation. This is not to say that getting a sexual rush from your partner is not important. It is very important, but on a different level. Sexuality and passion in general, require not just the physical act of sex but the ability to be totally open with someone—to tell your partner exactly how you feel, what you like and dislike, to be able to understand your partner’s feelings and give that person the type of consideration you would like to be given are all parts of the intimacy that go beyond passion. You can have passion the biological rush of attraction without having a good marriage but you cannot have a great marriage without passion. You also need commitment, devotion, loyalty, honesty, compatibility, and tolerance. In the next few sections, we will look at several of the components that underlie success and result in a good relationship.

THE THREE ESSENTIAL FACTORS IN A RELATIONSHIP If passion is the spark that can occasionally ignite the biological aspects of a good relationship, then trust, respect, and love are the stabilizing factors, the ones that maintain a relationship. I have often conceptualized these three items as the legs of a tripod supporting commitment to a successful relationship. If one leg of a tripod is removed, the tripod will topple; if one of these supporting legs of commitment in a relationship is removed, the relationship itself is in jeopardy of collapsing. Trust Trust is defined as, a sense of reliance or faith—the ability to trust that someone will not let you down, hurt or betray you. In a marriage, this definition applies extremely well. As a metaphor, trust is like playing the childhood or theater game of “letting go.” In this game, you close your eyes and fall backward. If you are totally trusting, you will not stop your fall midway, because you know that someone is there who will catch you. In a marriage, it is critical to have complete trust that letting go will not find you flat on your back but, rather, safe in the hands of someone who cares about you. You trust that that person will be there to break your fall. This sense of trust can and does take many different forms and happens daily in a marriage. In small trusting ways, one develops a sense of trust that the partner will not forget the kiss

96

Chapter Eight

good-bye, or the phone call at work, or to bring home the newspaper. If you are engrossed in a video game and your spouse comes into the room, you will press pause to stop the game and will talk with her. If you are feeling emotional, you trust that you can discuss the reasons with your spouse. These are all examples of trusting ways of feeling comfortable enough to let go. Every relationship has its own set of unique trusting issues. On a deeper level, however, trust can be universally equated with emotionality and intimacy. This deeper form of trust must exist for a relationship to survive. It develops only when you trust your partner with your feelings so much that you can be totally open, frank, and honest. You can talk about anything, because your partner will not hurt you or deliberately misunderstand, or prevent you from saying what you want or need to say, think, or feel, or somehow use what you say against you. For some people, trust issues are of a different nature. Leah, for example, had watched her father stay out late every night while her mother paced and became increasingly frustrated. This behavior occurred every single day that her father went to work. As a young child, Leah thought her mother was unfair or even, in her word, “crazy” for reacting in this manner to his not coming straight home. As she grew older, Leah realized that something was just not right. Her father would call to say he was leaving work at 5:30 in the evening yet he would not get home until after 10:00. His drive home from work was no more than 45 minutes—even in heavy traffic. Because of her childhood scars, Leah needed a partner she could trust to be where he was supposed to be when he was supposed to be there. If she did not get that from her partner, the deeper levels of trust would never develop. She eventually found a man she felt comfortable enough to trust, whom she was ultimately so trusting with that she told him why she was so concerned about where he would be. Leah’s letting go and her partner’s trusting reaction served to enhance their relationship. Respect Twenty-six year old Marni, whom I was seeing because she felt unsure of her choice of career, said to me, “I need to marry someone I can respect. That’s why I will only marry a doctor.” That comment not only suggests a flaw in Marni’s approach to finding a partner but also encompasses one small component of respect. Marni’s problem with choice of career related to an overall insecurity about herself and her future. It is for this reason that she made the comment about marrying a doctor. Respect for her meant marrying someone with a secure future. She could respect only a person like that, but it also meant she had little respect for herself. What she was trying to do was to find

The Keys to a Good Relationship

97

someone with a title she could respect, partner with that title, and find a way to vicariously respect herself through it. Respect is variously defined as holding someone in esteem; showing them honor or deference and consideration; or holding someone in high regard. As children, we are taught to give our respect to adults, teachers, clergy, and so forth. Somewhere along the way we learn to respect friends, peers, and, ultimately, ourselves. If one suffers from low self-esteem, one essentially does not respect one’s self. Paradoxically, if one has too much self-esteem, or an over inflated ego, one may not respect one’s self. Let’s look back at Marni. In some ways, her self-esteem appears intact. Look closely, however, and you can see someone who is confused about her own career choices, indicative of a flaw in her self-esteem, and who has an over inflated sense of self in terms of her goals for marriage, also indicative of limited self-esteem. And, as we have discussed throughout this book, like attracts like. If Marni’s self-esteem is low it is likely that she will be attracted to someone who also has low self-esteem, even though he may be a doctor. If both partners have low self-esteem, the respect component of the relationship is likely to falter. The definition of respect in relationships is also broader, in the sense that it encompasses a sense of commitment to one another that includes a healthy form of dependency. In a study subtitled “What Keeps Husband and Wife Together,” Dr. Steven Nock found that “The felt obligation to or imagined commitment of the spouse is the strongest influence on individual commitment to marriage.” In this study of over 2,300 individuals, Dr. Nock found that when a number of variables were explored only a few helped to explain the idea of commitment. He operationally defined commitment, as the perceived consequences on the individual should the marriage end. To determine the sense of commitment or, in our terms, the amount of respect in the relationship, respondents could choose between such variables as income levels, educational achievements, degree of occupational success, the length of the marriage, whether or not the couple had children, and the degree of regard or respect they had for their spouse. While level of income and occupational levels contributed to a sense of respect or commitment, the degree of obligation one spouse felt toward the other was the strongest influence for a sense of commitment. What this study tends to confirm is what we already know: If spouses have trust in and respect for each other, the strength of the bond is so much stronger. Love Love the third leg of the tripod, is a feeling we all have and is even overwhelming at times, yet despite our familiarity with the concept we have great

98

Chapter Eight

difficulty defining it. Many have described love as the only real basis for marriage. While we see it as just one of three important bases, the need for love is critical for success in a relationship, regardless of how one conceptualizes it. Love is but a word; however, the feeling it entails is something poets have tried to define and describe since time immemorial. Researchers have only recently focused scientific attention on the concept of love but have, to this point, managed to come up with only “biochemical changes” as a definition. Social scientists have looked at the concept and have been able to define love by equating it with other concepts, such as a drive or a need. Freud hypothesized two drives in humans: Eros, which he defined as the love or sex drive that humans have; and Thanatos, the drive toward death. The drive for Eros is a drive for procreation, which can only occur successfully with someone we feel bonded to. More recently, theorists have equated love as a feeling of energy that is felt only toward the one we relate to best. This energy comes from withdrawing psychic or emotional energy from other aspects of our lives and investing it into our loved one. In a very real sense we become preoccupied with the person we are drawn to. This preoccupation allows us to keep a sense of devotion to the loved person. Drs. David and Jill Scharff have defined the concept of falling in love as “two personalities entering into a loving space.” There is a dual emphasis in this statement: (a) personalities, as we have discussed, where like attracts like, and (b) entering together. If one individual is ready to enter into a loving relationship and the other person is not, there will be no love, no bond in the relationship. Allison is 29 years old, and has been married for four years. She came to my office following a referral by her medical doctor. Allison’s complaint was that she was unhappy in her marriage. “He is a really great guy, everything any woman could want in a husband. I’m just not happy with him. I know I just don’t love him.” Both Allison’s doctor and I recognized that Allison’s statement was not based on the reality of her marriage but on her depression. Allison was not only withdrawing from her husband, but generally felt herself suffering from low energy. She was less active at work and had, in her words, “less patience” for her friends. At the point that her depression began to lift, which came only after a considerable amount of treatment, her relationship with her husband began to improve significantly. One of the most effective therapies for depression is cognitive therapy. The primary technique of this form of therapy is changing one’s own negative thoughts into positive ones. If you go around convincing yourself that you are not good-looking, you will feel ugly. Similarly, if you feel down and convince

The Keys to a Good Relationship

99

yourself that it is because your marriage is not good, you will think that your marriage is bad and you may even seek a divorce. What we learn from Allison’s case and what we know about cognitive therapy is that love is not just a feeling. Love requires a thought process of commitment. It is a decision to work at being in love—that is, love requires work, energy, and making the choice to keep working at maintaining energy in the relationship. When you are “in love,” you decide to overlook the minor things that might cause negative feelings to arise. When I argue with my wife, I make the choice of loving her in spite of any disagreement. To have a successful relationship we have to make the commitment to work at trust, respect, and love in spite of any negative moments that occur.

COMPROMISE AND ACCOMMODATION REDUX At this point, it is wise to revisit something we first discussed in Chapter Three: Compromise and Accommodation. In that chapter, we found that individuals use these two techniques to form the underlying dynamic for maintaining stability in a relationship. A house that is built to sway in an earthquake is more likely to survive than a house built without any give, so rigid that the slightest tremor will crack the foundation. So too, a relationship needs to have a degree of give-and-take, or compromise and accommodation. Compromise is the ability two partners have in being able to find a satisfactory agreement, while the ability to accommodate allows partners in a relationship to adjust or accept the conditions that exist. As we have seen, these abilities are enhanced by individual personality and similarities in partners’ personalities. The greater the degree of personality similarity between two people the higher the degree of compromise and level of accommodation they can achieve. There are, however, areas in individuals’ lives that tend to be flash points of conflict that may be made worse by too much similarity and partners must call upon their skills, putting in a good deal of effort and hard work to get along. Without this strong effort, they may not be able to successfully resolve their differences. There has been a large amount of research that shows a clear connection between the amount of stress in a marriage and depressive symptoms for the spouses. If spouses do not accept one another’s emotional needs as legitimate or if they fail to be there for one another, the degree of depression the spouses report becomes worsen. If spouses are, however, understanding toward one another and optimistic about their relationship, the level of depressive symptoms reported diminishes significantly. Compromise and accommodation are the tools which allow this to happen.

100

Chapter Eight

For the most part, the most common areas of marital conflict are sex, child rearing, financial issues, and in-law problems. In the next chapter we will address more specific ways to communicate in a relationship using these issues as the focus. Here the emphasis is on understanding the need for, and importance of, learning to accommodate to and compromise with your partner. Successful relationships are evidenced by the satisfaction partners’ experience, and that is a function of the ability of the partners to find an acceptable compromise. For instance, if one partner wants sex frequently and the other less so, there will be tension that only a mutually agreeable compromise will alleviate. In child rearing, there is a classic battle that often occurs between the spouses who function as the parents of the child. In general, it takes the following form: The father, whom we will call Frank, sees himself as a tough person and was reared by extremely demanding and rigid parents. His wife, whom, we shall call Sally, is almost the opposite. She is very gentle, as were her parents. Frank and Sally have a great relationship and, except for this one difference, have much in common. Frank has learned, for the most part, to accommodate to Sally’s style of child rearing and, in fact, has tried to use it as a model for himself. He has never wanted to be as rigid as his parents were, though at times, Frank feels Sally is too gentle. In his view, she lets the children get away with too much. And so, Frank was conflicted. He wanted to take a more gentle approach to child rearing, to be more like Sally, yet he found her too easy-going. There is no clear objective norm for what might be considered too gentle, though there are some guidelines for what is too rigid, demanding, and punitive. Frank was aware of that but could not seem to find the middle ground of compromise. So he turned his anger and frustration toward Sally. Frank did not mean to do that but he just could not help himself. The couple found themselves arguing regularly about how Sally reared the children. Compromise for Sally and Frank in this area seemed just too difficult to achieve. Luckily, Frank began to realize that his anger toward Sally was not justified; that their children are good kids; they do well in school, have close friends and are respectful. Frank decided that a little therapy was in order. Within a few sessions it became very evident that while he wanted to, Frank still had not accommodated nor had he adjusted himself to Sally’s approach toward the children. What Frank was experiencing were feelings of anger and envy. He was angry that his parents had not been more affectionate and was envious that his own children were fortunate enough to have a parent like Sally. Once he came to these realizations, Frank found accommodating and compromising a great deal eas-

The Keys to a Good Relationship

101

ier. In fact, his approach to child rearing became more like Sally’s parents’ than Sally’s was. Frank loves Sally; respects her, and worked hard to develop the trust necessary to overcome this one area of conflict.

BALANCED RECIPROCITY When personalities begin the process of combining to form relationships, trust, respect and love usually exist on a superficial or perfunctory level. Deeper commitment, of course, is required. To accomplish this stronger commitment, it is essential for both partners to accommodate to one another and compromise for each other. For a truly successful relationship to develop, each of the partners relinquishes a small part of his or her individuality. This investment of self results in the desire to share or give back to each other. Sociologists refer to this process as “balanced reciprocity.” The definition of balanced reciprocity, or the exchange of equivalent goods or services, belies the importance of the concept in successful relationships. In its most basic form, balanced reciprocity is the equivalent of “one hand washing the other.” You do for me and I’ll gladly do for you. Arlene says, “I know Bruce likes me to wear bright colors. I do that for him.” Bruce, in turn, says, “Arlene once said she likes to receive small gifts for no reason. I sometimes give her a card, flowers, or things like that. It makes me happy to see her happy.” In a long-term successful relationship two types of reciprocity occur. Immediate exchange has a short duration and is usually of limited value. When one friend helps another by giving her a lift when her car is broken, and is offered an invitation to go to lunch, the payback is rapid and the emotional investment is minimal. This type of exchange is almost frequently found among acquaintances and friends. As a reminder of the distinctions between acquaintances and friends, see Chapter Two. Long-term exchange of reciprocity is more likely to occur among friends and close friends and not among acquaintances; that is, among those who have deeper, more meaningful relationships. Like Arlene and Bruce, above, there is a long-term exchange that goes well beyond a one-time event. This type of reciprocity allows the members of the relationship to receive favors without worrying about an immediate payback. There is an analogous concept with gratification. Immediate gratification is sometimes good. Long-term gratification, though, is truly rewarding. The investment of kindness over time will ultimately pay off in a reward or exchange at a later date. This type of reciprocity indicates a sense of security

102

Chapter Eight

within the relationship and does not apply to activities or the exchange of favors or gifts, but relates to the long-term goals that partners in a relationship share with one another. One of my favorite questions to couples I see for marital counseling is, “What do you two have in common?” Often the response includes, “We have common goals.” Having a goal means, you are striving to attain something. If a marriage is to strive to achieve a marital goal, the partners must be willing to work together to compensate for each other’s weaknesses. It is my feeling that one cannot share goals with anyone unless one feels a sense of reciprocity toward that individual. The reason for that is quite simple: Working together toward a common goal requires that you both define the goal similarly; that is you both agree on a general approach toward reaching the goal, and you are tolerant of your partner’s weaknesses if he or she cannot achieve all the steps necessary toward reaching that goal. You, therefore, help your partner overcome her or his weaknesses. If long-term reciprocity is functioning in the relationship, your partner gladly does the same for you. It is unfortunate that in many marriages when reciprocity exists it functions only for immediate exchange. If there is no long-term investment, the relationship is subject to vague poorly defined goals. Saying that you have a goal is not the same as working toward a goal with the person you have emotionally invested yourself in. The goals you share may be to raise healthy, successful children, or to build a successful family business, or to both grow in the relationship. Any of these goals requires a long-term investment. None of them is easily achieved. They all pose many challenges and will present with several setbacks. If you work together reciprocally and base your struggle on trust, respect and love, success, in one form or another, is inevitable.

SUMMARY In this chapter, titled “The Keys to a Good Relationship,” we have looked at the definitions of passion and love and have seen that love is what is required, but love alone is not enough for a successful relationship. There must also be trust and respect. Even when trust, respect, and love do exist, partners in a successful relationship must learn to compromise with and accommodate to one another. The technique for accomplishing this is predicated on balanced reciprocity, the ability to do for one another and expect the other to be there for you, especially over the long term. Perhaps the best metaphor for a successful marriage is building a house. Similar personalities help to form a strong relationship. The more alike the

The Keys to a Good Relationship

103

personalities are, the stronger the foundation of the house. The bricks that form the house are made of trust, respect, and love. The roof of this house is made of compromise and accommodation. The greater the partners’ ability to work together reciprocally, the stronger the roof. In the next chapter, we will look at how partners communicate with each other. We will also review some of the common pitfalls, and ways to improve on the skills that do exist.

Chapter Nine

Even in a Good Relationship You Need to Communicate

Dawn and Chuck have been married for 26 years. Both work in similar jobs, and have for many years. They have two children, one is away at college and the other will be going off shortly. When Chuck first came to see me, his reason was to try to improve his marriage. He complained that he had no relationship with his wife and “years of no physical contact either.” Even at the beginning of the relationship, there was “virtually no relationship.” When I asked him why he married her, he responded, “I’m really not sure, but I’m sorry to admit that I realized I had no feelings for Dawn almost from the outset.” Chuck went on to describe himself as being very “friendly and adventurous.” He described Dawn as “socially withdrawn, having few hobbies and no real lust for life.” He went on to say, “She’s content to go to bed at 9:30, even on weekends. I, on the other hand, like going to movies and concerts, theater and sporting events, and she almost never wants to come with me.” I asked Chuck if he ever discussed his clear sense of frustration with Dawn. His response was “I guess I just keep everything bottled up inside!” “Do you talk about any of your feelings with Dawn?” I asked. Chuck just shook his head from side to side. I was curious about the relationship from another perspective, so I asked Chuck why Dawn had not accompanied him to the session. He responded, “She says she doesn’t believe in this stuff.” Chuck had met Dawn at a fraternity party when they were both freshmen in college. Neither had dated much before they met and neither, apparently, had the desire to date others from that point on. In Chuck’s words, “It seemed comfortable. There wasn’t any overwhelming love or attraction. I guess we were both young and insecure.” 104

Even in a Good Relationship You Need to Communicate

105

I saw Chuck several times and ultimately insisted on having Dawn join him. I explained that if there were to be any improvement in the marriage it would require my having an opportunity to meet with her and evaluate her level of functioning in the relationship. Chuck said he understood and would convey the message to Dawn. Dawn did come to a session with Chuck. And, she was exactly the way Chuck described her. Her responses were primarily monosyllabic. Dawn spoke only when she was spoken to directly. She sat in a withdrawn fashion, in a corner of the couch with her arms folded and her head down. Dawn clearly was a pure introvert. I stated the importance of communication and opening up to one another to both Chuck and Dawn. I also gave them “homework” to do, which if done properly, would help encourage and enhance their talking. This “homework” is explained further on in this chapter. At the very next session when Chuck came in he said, “Dawn thinks you’re a nice guy, but she doesn’t believe in therapy and said she’s never coming back again.” I asked if they had begun to communicate. “You know, Doc, I kept trying to get her to open up just one time, but she never did and she probably never will.” More about Dawn and Chuck a little later. Another couple came to see me for family counseling. Their initial reason for referral was that all three of their children seemed extremely unhappy. There was a great deal of conflict among all of them and both parents felt an “outsider” would be better able to understand what was happening to their family and make suggestions for change. When this family came to the first session three girls, ranging in age from 12 to 17, who appeared agitated, upset and grumpy, greeted me. I asked all five family members into consultation, but found that very unproductive— there was too much tension in the room. I decided to try speaking with the girls without the parents present, so I asked them to wait outside. There was an almost immediate transformation once the girls were alone with me. They became more talkative and the sense of gloom that seemed to hover over them was gone. After just ten minutes of speaking with the girls it was clear that, yes, there was a high level of rivalry among them but they wished one another no harm. Instead, what was happening in the family dynamic was more of a result of the conflict the girls perceived existing between their parents. The girls were playing into that conflict, making their own sibling situation seem so much worse that it actually was. I spoke with the girls for a few moments more and gave them a few simple suggestions as to how to reduce the tension. I also told them to avoid getting in the middle of their parents’ arguments. They immediately understood

106

Chapter Nine

what I meant without the need for specifics, and promised that they would try. Then I called in the parents. Janet and Leo had been married for 21 years. The first thing they said to me when they came in, even before I had a chance to say anything, was that they had been in marital therapy about three years prior for about six months and that had not seemed to help. Leo volunteered that the therapist “just didn’t seem to understand us.” When I asked why, Janet responded, “She thought we weren’t right for each other from the beginning, and she thought that way because my mother didn’t want me to marry Leo.” I pursued this angle for more information on negative family aspects to the relationship—remember in-law problems can be a precursor to divorce. Why did Janet’s mother not want her to marry Leo? There is an old Yiddish saying tinged with a great deal of cynicism—“It’s a problem when the bride is just too beautiful or has too much going for her.” Janet’s mother did not want her to marry Leo because she felt that his family was too wealthy and might be too good for her. In retelling these events, Janet commented that her mother had always been jealous, and that was probably the main reason for her objections. From the time they were married until her mother passed away to the years prior to her death, however, Leo always got along well with his motherin-law. What, then, were the issues that caused conflicts to constantly surface between Leo and Janet? It was not her mother’s objections. Janet was the type of person who wanted others to assume responsibility and who had difficulty expressing her disagreements. Leo, on the other hand, tended to be a man who liked to draw attention to himself but kept communication at a very shallow level. In short, Leo had some Histrionic tendencies and Janet some Dependent ones. Both of these couples, Dawn and Chuck, and Leo and Janet, filled out the questionnaires that we demonstrated in Chapter Six. (A reminder: This test is only a very general indicator of personality style, and diagnoses cannot be made based on any one measure.) Recall that each category corresponds roughly to each of the five personality factors: Category 1—Neuroticism; Category 2—Extroversion; Category 3—Openness to experience; Category 4—Agreeableness; and Category 5—Conscientiousness. Dawn and Chuck’s profile is presented in Table 9.1. Dawn’s scores are marked with “o,” Chuck’s with “x.” Remember that Dawn was extremely withdrawn when I met her and Chuck seemed to be more outgoing. Dawn’s profile shows that she is high in Categories 1 and 5 and that she did not answer positively any questions in Category 3. Chuck, on the other hand, scored high in Categories 2, 3, and 4. From the perspective of this scale, Chuck and Dawn have virtually no personality traits in common. Not only do

Even in a Good Relationship You Need to Communicate Table 9.1.

107

Dawn and Chuck’s Scoring Sheet

Category 1

x o

x o

o

o

o

o

o

2

x o

x o

x

x

x

x

x

3

x o

x

x

x

x

x

4

x o

x o

x o

x

x

x

5

x o

x o

x o

o

o

o

o

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

x

7

Number of “Yes” Answers

they not communicate much, but even if they did, they would probably have little to enjoy together. Chuck presents as an outgoing individual who is willing to try new things and is highly agreeable. Dawn presents as someone who is anxious, withdrawn and highly conscientious. Janet and Leo’s profile on the scale looks like Table 9.2. Janet’s scores are marked with “o” and Leo’s are marked with “x.” It is quite obvious that, as far as the profiles go, Janet and Leo have much closer personality-style profiles than do Dawn and Chuck. This is also evident Table 9.2.

Janet and Leo’s Scoring Sheet

Category 1

x o

x o

x o

x o

x

2

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

3

x o

x o

x o

x o

4

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

x o

5

x o

x o

x o

o

o

o

0

1

2

3

4

5

Number of “Yes” Answers

6

7

108

Chapter Nine

in the way the two couples interacted in my office and in the many ways they described their interactions. Despite the years of difficulties in their relationship, Janet and Leo sought to get help for the entire family. Chuck also felt a strong need to get help, but Dawn did not. Using some of the techniques, we will describe in this chapter and a lot of work at expressing emotions and communication more appropriately, Janet and Leo began to have an excellent relationship. Dawn and Chuck separated and ultimately divorced. The basis for sharing was, unfortunately, never there.

WHAT IS COMMUNICATION AND WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT? Having similar personalities may be necessary for a successful relationship to develop and progress, but it is not sufficient. Similarly, trust, respect and love are part of a successful relationship, as are compromise and accommodation, but alone none of these items is sufficient. At the end of the previous chapter, we drew an analogy between building a house and these relationship components. Similar personalities help to form the foundation. Trust, respect and love are the bricks for the walls of this house. Compromise and accommodation form the roof. But turning the house into a home, breathing a sense of life and vitality into the living space of the house, requires the right type of communication. The phrase, “You need to communicate more,” has, unfortunately, become trite—yet it is something that, if overlooked or done improperly, can result in destructive tendencies developing in any relationship and ultimately undermining a marriage. It is, therefore, most important to understand just what communication means. When individuals communicate, they attempt to make themselves understood to each other. They exchange messages, and are in a state of communion or intimacy with one another. Communication helps in and with perception of the world in which we live. To communicate requires those involved in the communication process to open up and expose a part of themselves. We are all involved in communication all the time, but we communicate differently and in varying degrees. Some of us communicate with articulate phraseology others with just a wink. Some communicate in clipped, measured tones; others in long-flowing emotional outbursts. Some of us do our best communication nonverbally; others must say what we feel and must even repeat it a few times.

Even in a Good Relationship You Need to Communicate

109

Most of us, however, use a combination of these different approaches. Unfortunately, we are rarely aware of how we communicate and are, therefore, unsure of our communicating strengths and weaknesses. There are some common and important communicative strategies, which are not verbal but are critical for relationships. We all use some aspects of them but we do not pay careful attention to them. Some of these nonverbal communication patterns are well known. For example, women tend to engage in eye contact more frequently than men do; people who report being in love with one another share a great deal more eye contact than others involved in any communication regardless of the emotional intensity; flirting behaviors almost always include preening, fixing the hair, diminished head-turning and orienting the shoulders towards the person you are most interested in. What is additionally interesting is how these communicating behaviors affect others. It has been shown that even observers to these nonverbal communications show signs of being engaged in the conversation by displaying similar types of body language. In some ways, it appears as if they might be mimicking what they observe. But what it really shows is an understanding of the communication process they are a part of, even though they may simply be observers. Some people feel that they communicate better via telephone or E-mail. Telephone conversations eliminate the important body language that is part of the full package of communication. E-mail not only eliminates body language, but intonation as well. Tone and voice add a critical dimension to communication. Just think about the following words spoken first as a question and then as statement: “I hate Edna.” Stating a fact, the speaker is indicating a strong dislike of Edna. Asking a question, the speaker is suggesting any number of possibilities, including not knowing Edna, or liking her a great deal. Eliminating the two modalities of body language and tone allows individuals to hide a part of themselves from the communication process. Of course, expediency is the rule in certain communications, but when it comes to relationships that are close, loving and intimate there is no substitute for a complete combination of both verbal and nonverbal communication. In a series of studies exploring the relationship between personality, marital satisfaction and quality of life, it was found that two components of marital communication were keys to overall quality of life. These two skills were identified as expressiveness and intimacy. Expressiveness is the ability to articulate one’s feelings using a broad array of communicative approaches, both verbal and nonverbal. Intimacy is the ability to show an emotional bond via a communicative process. Intimacy, like communication, requires giving up

110

Chapter Nine

a part of yourself to the person you can communicate with. Lest you believe that only certain individuals, perhaps those born with these two skills, are the only ones who have them, let’s take a look at two additional studies of communication in relationships. In a study of 30 couples having marital and sexual difficulties assigned to one of three different intervention groups, two of the groups ended up showing signs of improvement in their levels of marital and sexual satisfaction. One of the intervention groups was called “sexual enrichment.” This group discussed issues related to improving their sex lives using physical and emotional enhancers, as well as learning how to communicate their needs more effectively. The focus of the second group was on improving communication skills within each of the couples. Each of these two groups met once a week for three hours over a period of four weeks. Couples in the communication skills group showed positive changes in their marital and sexual relationships. Those in the sexual enrichment group reported even more, significant positive changes in their marital satisfaction. Both spouses in these groups also reported more expressions of love and affection, and the women reported deriving more pleasure from the sexual component of their relationship than ever before. The third group did not have a specific intervention program and showed no change. This study clearly shows that expressiveness and intimacy can be learned in just a few weeks and can lead to long-lasting positive changes in a marriage. Seventy-six couples took part in another study of interpersonal communication. This study also looked at communication between spouses, and its impact on sexual adjustment. This study was different from the previously mentioned in that there was no specific intervention. Instead, the participants in this study were asked to fill out a variety of forms that provided the researchers with insight into how well the members of each couple interacted with one another. After a variety of analyses, the researchers concluded that overall relationship success for both partners was related to how well women understood their husbands’ view of marital roles. Further, if both partners reported understanding each other and men understood their wives preferences, then both inevitably reported higher levels of sexual satisfaction. Here, too, understanding through communication was shown to lead to happiness. Both of the above studies, as well as many others, plainly show the marital and sexual benefits of good communication. A variety of other studies point out the converse. There is a clear relationship between poor communication and domestic violence. One study of 95 couples took a specific look at the relationship between communication patterns and the struggle for power in a marriage. The couples were grouped by degree of violence in their rela-

Even in a Good Relationship You Need to Communicate

111

tionships. Three groups were formed, ranging from nonviolent happy couples to domestically violent unhappy marriages. The violent couples showed an interesting and perplexing pattern of interaction. In these unhappy situations, husbands often placed excessive demands on their wives, and their wives withdrew. When this pattern was joined with a husband who felt powerless and a wife who exhibited more power than her spouse, domestic violence often did ensue. One hundred and fourteen couples with a history of domestic violence took part in another long-term study. In this program couples that had very serious difficulties getting along, but did not want their relationships to end, took part in a program to enhance effective communication. Over a period of five years, the couples that worked at communication skills showed a consistent pattern of increasing positive communication, decreasing negative attention, and, overall, reported much lower levels of marital violence. What these few studies show is the powerful patterns that communications can affect in relationships. If communication styles are poor and the dynamic of the marriage tends toward a sense of power and control, the result can be violence within the relationship. When communication styles are expressive, intimate, sharing and sincere, the quality of the marriage is greatly enhanced. Both of the partners feel closer to one another, and not only more in love, but physically drawn to one another as well.

PITFALLS AND PROBLEMS Alexandra got married straight out of college at the age of 22. An occupational therapist with an excellent career, she decided that she did not want to have children. She never told her husband about that decision but at the age of 25, Alexandra gave birth to a daughter. A year-and-a-half later, she gave birth to her second child, a son. What brought Alexandra and her husband to therapy was the absence of a sexual relationship in their marriage. It had ended three years before, when she was pregnant with her second child. In our discussions in marital therapy, Alexandra told her husband, Elliot, about her initial decision not to have children. Her statement shocked him because he never knew of that decision or how she felt about having children. She took the Pill, another matter they never discussed. In spite of religiously using the Pill as contraception, Alexandra did become pregnant. Her husband looked overwhelmed when he heard all of this but said nothing; he just remained still, sitting in stunned silence. I asked what I believed to be an obvious question “Was the second child a mistake as well?”

112

Chapter Nine

“No,” Alexandra responded. She paused for a moment to collect her thoughts, and then continued, “As long as I had a child, I did not want to have an only child. That causes a whole other series of problems. At least they would have each other to talk with.” Again, she paused, so I continued the thought, “And that’s why you stopped having sex completely. It’s the only guarantee to not having any more children.” She nodded in agreement. For several weeks, we delved into Alexandra’s motivations. She was raised in a wealthy professional family. She was the younger of two children who were by turn spoiled or overlooked by both of their parents. Her father was away from home a good deal; as a hospital administrator, he kept very long hours and often traveled. Alexandra’s mother went back to her teaching job when her younger child started first grade. But she also took on extra work, coaching the girls’ high school basketball and volleyball teams. Most weekday evenings, Alexandra and her sister had to fend for themselves until late at night. Alexandra described her parents’ marriage as “poor to horrible.” “My father cheated on my mother, and just about everyone except my mother knew, including me. When Mom did find out about it, she became depressed but decided not to do anything about the situation. As my father got older his straying diminished, and I guess that’s all my mother ever really wanted.” Alexandra husband’s family was a strongly bonded, loving and supportive one. Alexandra’s comments about her in-laws were stated repeatedly and simply. “They’re much too close for me.” She was fearful of that emotional closeness. I choose to tell you about Alexandra because her situation serves to point out, in a relatively clear manner, the most common pitfalls and problems we find in relationships—what we bring to the relationship and how we allow our baggage, which is filled with our history, to impact on our present and future. In Alexandra’s case, her parents’ cold, distant relationship with one another caused Alexandra to believe that their parents’ lifestyles formed the basis for what a relationship between spouses was all about. Furthermore, their being so wrapped up in their own lives caused Alexandra to believe that, despite the fact that the entire family took family vacations when she was a child, two to three times a year, adults were simply too preoccupied to spend time with and really talk to their children. And, if adults showed involvement and concern toward one another and their children, it was out of the norm and should be viewed as suspect. Hence Alexandra’s desire not to have children, her distancing herself from her husband, and confusion and fear regarding his loving, very caring and open family.

Even in a Good Relationship You Need to Communicate

113

Alexandra put a wall around herself to keep the pain of personal relationships from penetrating and hurting her. While it was anything but simple for Alexandra to change, once she began communicating her fears in therapy, her emotions led to a discussion of feelings, and once feelings began to emerge, the wall she had erected to protect herself began to come crumbling down. Poor communication is often cited as, one of the most common reasons for people to enter marital counseling. While this is generally true, there is good evidence that specific communication styles are more likely to be the underlying causes of marital distress. Individuals who withdraw rather than discuss their fear or anger tend to have more marital conflict. Thus, personality styles as they interact with the communication process combine to determine whether the marriage will succeed. In one follow-up study of marital-therapy outcomes, a group of couples that did not benefit from their therapy was evaluated to determine the cause for the lack of success. All of the couples in the study had been taught how to communicate better and reportedly practiced the techniques exactly as they were shown. The researchers, however, found that among the couples that did not benefit, there was an interesting pattern. While these couples did talk more with one another and even communicated using better techniques with each other, they avoided discussing important issues. This study serves to reinforce the findings we discussed earlier—there is a relationship between communication and difficulty in a marriage, and it even includes domestic violence. I have come across a pattern of marital distancing that I refer to as platonic marriage. The spouses who live their lives in a platonic relationship often do not make it into marital counseling. They appear overtly to have a good relationship. They seem to get along with one another, go places together, and even have a good time together. Like Alexandra’s parents, however, they have no time or interest for sharing deeper feelings with one another. Platonic marital partners may or may not cheat on one another. What defines a platonic marriage is that the partners do not share a sexually fulfilling relationship. They are friends, but when it comes down to measuring the degree of friendship they share, they are more like acquaintances or friends and not at all like close friends. There are similar personality components to individuals who are partners in a platonic marriage. Individuals who are Narcissists, Borderlines, or Histrionics are most likely to allow themselves to have these types of loveless marriages. These individuals put themselves first and, as we have discussed, have difficulty forming deep emotional bonds with another person, even their own spouses. Clearly, these marital partners do not know how to communicate and may not even have an interest in learning how to share intimacy with another person.

114

Chapter Nine

What most often brings these platonic-marriage couples to therapy is a problem with a child. If communication difficulties do not affect the marital partners directly, it is the offspring, who tend to suffer the most. If you have difficulty getting along with your spouse, it inevitably filters down to your children. Even if you feel you do not have a problem maintaining your marriage, or even if you enjoy keeping your marriage at a superficial level, children are always intuitive enough to pick up the difficulties that a relationship of this nature causes, and children inevitably react to their intuition. Children who “act out” or are depressed may be reflecting a lack of emotion in their family and coldness between their parents. Children can be affected in a variety of ways, beyond simply being subjected to conflicts between their parents. What cannot be overlooked is the genetic predisposition children inherit from their parents. While predisposition alone is not sufficient to cause a behavior to be expressed, a combination of underlying genes and exposure to certain behaviors can cause the child to begin acting in a destruction fashion. We remember, though, that personality disorders are probably due to a combination of underlying genetic makeup and exposure to certain negative events. An additional pitfall that occasionally impedes the ability to communicate and impacts on children is the need to juggle the many roles; adults are forced to take on. I have spoken with many men and women who regularly complain that they find it difficult balancing being a good worker, a good spouse, and a good parent. Many articles on this topic have appeared in newspapers and magazines focused primarily on women, but it is not just a women’s problem. Men often feel pressured to limit their time at home just so that they can keep their job security. If time is not properly structured and the quality of the time spent with family members is not of reasonable value, inevitably relationships will suffer, no matter how well matched the partners. One additional pitfall to communication worth reiterating is the need to “fight fair.” It is a given that if you live with someone, no matter how much alike your are, no matter how much you have in common, no matter how much you love them, there will be times of conflict. There is a barber in my neighborhood that is well into his seventies. On the day of his 50th wedding anniversary, he was proclaiming how wonderful his marriage is. I asked him how he and his wife resolved their arguments. He responded, “We never fight.” I asked how that could possibly be, and he answered, “It’s not that I don’t disagree with her, it’s just that I have always told her that she is right.” He is the exception. The need to vent and deal with conflict is well established. It is equally well established that it be done in an appropriate manner. This approach, an extreme form of accommodation, worked for the barber

Even in a Good Relationship You Need to Communicate

115

and his wife. It is one way of fighting fair by avoiding all fights. Some people, however, would become resentful if they were always called upon to give in to their partners. And, if forced to, they might find a way to strike back at that partner. Being excessively passive, aggressive, or passive-aggressive is not a way to “fight fair.” Individuals who are passive act as if they have no opinion or no feeling, and simply give in. Resentment can, and usually does, build up in these situations, and often a horrible emotional explosion takes place. Tantrums may occur, and resolving what might have been a very minor issue becomes extremely difficult. Aggressive reactions take the shape of constant turmoil, so much so that opinions cannot be shared. Individuals state their position as if it were law and usually add a threat onto it: “If you don’t listen to what I say and do what I tell you to I’ll never speak with you again.” Those who take a passive-aggressive approach to communication combine the worst aspects of both. They are passive at the outset of the discussion, they will not voice their opinion but will act as if they agree, or at worst, are willing to go along, with their partner’s position. The actual reaction, however, occurs later. After agreeing, or seeming to agree, to go along with their partner’s position, they sabotage the outcome either by saying they never agreed to go along with it or by overtly discarding the agreement. There are many ways to cause conflict in a relationship. At the heart of all these conflict-causing behaviors is poor communication. If partners want to learn to overcome their problems, and this is the key, there has to be a desire on the part of those in the relationship to want to overcome their difficulties, and marital therapy in any of its forms holds a key to success.

TECHNIQUES FOR IMPROVEMENT Over the years several differing approaches to martial counseling have been developed. Each of these techniques is based upon a theoretical approach to defining what is needed to improve relationships. Similarly, each of the therapeutic interventions has parallels in individual counseling. Despite the differing approaches to therapy, at the heart of all of them is the recognition of the importance of enhancing communication. The achievement in martial therapy is when the partners understand that it is, the marriage that is the patient. In this section, we will first review the different marriage-therapy techniques and then discuss some very specific exercises to help increase communication and improve the quality of a relationship. There is one caveat

116

Chapter Nine

here—when individuals present for marital therapy, the outcome is not always assured. In some situations, a successful therapy outcome can be that, the couple decides to divorce. If there is little room for agreement between the couple and there is no compatibility, separating and divorce may be the best, if not the only, option. Fortunately, that position is not the most frequent outcome. The focus of this book has been on the types of personalities that bond— “like attracts like.” Divorce, from that perspective, is not the outcome this work is focused on. The goal of this chapter is to help couples form stronger, warmer, healthier relationships, and we will review marital therapy from that point of view. There are many different schools of therapy, but convention and theoretical approach has allowed for the focus of these many approaches to be factored down to two general orientations:—Behavioral and Cognitive Behavioral Marital Therapy; and Psychodynamic, or Insight-Oriented Marital Therapy. As Behavioral and Cognitive Behavioral Marital Therapy have developed more research-based support for their orientations, they have developed somewhat, more distinct therapeutic styles. For this reason, they will be reviewed separately. Behavioral Marriage Therapy is based on the presumption that negative behaviors are learned. Couples who have a poor relationship tend to focus on negatives and to reward one another in a negative fashion. Treatment for marital distress in this orientation focuses on the present rather than any possible underlying causes. The emphasis in Behavioral Marital Therapy is on teaching couples problem-solving by learning how to communicate more effectively. Communication focuses on eliminating defensiveness and posturing and on planning activities that increase pleasure while decreasing stress between the partners. Recommendations are very specific and concrete and include teaching spouses how to contract with one another for increases in social and recreational activities. There is also an emphasis placed on doing “homework” so that the behaviors the therapist teaches are put into practice and generalize outside of the therapeutic environment. While Behavioral Therapy places the emphasis on actual behaviors, Cognitive Marital Therapy focuses on thoughts, attributions, or cognitions. There are several, patterns of thoughts that seem to contribute to poor marital adjustment. These include selective attention, which is the act of hearing only portions of what is actually being said; expectations about what will take place; assumptions about partners and their character; and rigid standards of what is “right” and what is “wrong.” The focus in Cognitive Marital Therapy is on helping partners to evaluate their underlying thought patterns so that

Even in a Good Relationship You Need to Communicate

117

their behaviors will not be a result of a distorted assumption, expectation, or standard. Often, Cognitive Marital Therapy is used as an adjunct to Behavioral Therapy, partly because there is a great deal of similarity between the techniques. “Homework” is also assigned, and the interventions are often very well specified. Spouses are asked to help one another consider alternatives for the reasons their partners may be acting in a negative fashion and reevaluate standards for success in a relationship. Psychodynamic, or Insight-Oriented Marital Therapy focuses on helping partners in a relationship overcome their underlying, often hidden, sources of conflict that developed earlier in their lives. The goal is to develop insight and understanding by sharing the feelings that the partners may have been afraid to express for fear of making themselves vulnerable. By probing emotions, uncovering and interpreting negative ideas the couples have toward themselves, their spouses and the relationship and explaining the source for the problem communications, therapy allows the spouses to gain a new view of themselves and each other. When the different approaches to marital therapy are compared, they all seem to have equal results in improving satisfaction in marriages. This can mean many different things: that the differing therapies are all equally effective; that some couples are not getting the specific types of treatments that they need; or that there is a common thread to all of the therapies. Perhaps the most significant reason for equal success, regardless of approach, is that different therapies are compared only in research settings. In these types of studies, therapists are required to rigidly follow a manual for interventions. In clinical practice, most therapists tend to use a more eclectic approach, employing techniques from a variety of marital therapy approaches. Most therapists will focus primarily on improving communication by using homework assignments and interpreting individual negative behaviors that cause conflict in the relationship. There is no substitute for therapy if it is necessary, but the following techniques help improve all relationships. Some are part of therapy and some are simple but critically important components of any good relationship. The first, most important, rule of communication in a relationship is to communicate. Three simple acts can help a great deal to accomplish regular communication. Partners should resolve to spend a minimum of five minutes together of undisturbed time every day, and devote that time exclusively to communication. If something arises that seems unclear, ask, do not assume. And, resolve to make time to have a date every week. The date does not have to be an extensive or expensive night on the town. A date can mean a quick

118

Chapter Nine

dinner or just pizza. It can mean taking a walk or window-shopping together. The emphasis for this time is not on the actual activity but on the behavior couples display toward one another when they date and allow themselves to have fun together. In an effort to make sure that selective attention does not cause either or both partners to think they are not being heard, when communicating feedback should be given. When a partner says to a spouse, “I hear what you are saying” or “Do you mean . . . ?” You show a deeper interest. Referred to as “conversational pitch back,” verbal or physical reactions to a spouse serve to show the other person that you are listening to what is happening. Two other important aspects worth working on to improve communication are intimacy and friendship. Intimacy, as we have defined it in a previous chapter, is an indication of a sharing of feelings and emotional resources. Friendship in a successful marriage as we have defined is the closest form of friends that can exist. What are the activities needed for a successful communicative marriage? Passion, intimacy, a full investment into the relationship, compromising and accommodating with one another, sharing feelings of trust, respect and love, and nurturing one another’s personalities to maintain a sense of sameness, being alike, and wanting to grow together. It may seem like a tall order but it is one that all successful marriages share. My hope here is that this book has brought you insights that will help you improve your partner-relationship, current or prospective. I wish you good listening, clear speaking, and good luck.

Selected Bibliography

Adams-Silvan, A. & Silvan, M. (1994). Paradise lost: A case of hysteria illustrating a specific dynamic of seduction trauma. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 75 (3), 499–510. Allport, G. W. (1965). Patterns and growth in personality, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Allport, G. W. (1966). Traits revisited. American Psychologist, 21, 1–10. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. Washington, DC. Apt, C. & Hurlbert, D. F. (1994). The sexual attitudes, behavior and relationships of women with histrionic personality disorder. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 20 (2), 125–133. Archart-Treichel, J. (1980). Biotypes: The critical link between your personality and your health. New York: New York Times Books. Babcock, J. C., Waltz, J., Jacobson, N. S. & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Power and violence: The relationship between communication patterns, power discrepancies and domestic violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61 (1), 40–50. Baucom, D. H., Epstein, N., Sayers, S. & Sher T. Goldman, (1989). The role of cognitions in marital relationships: Definitional, methodological and conceptual issues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57 (1), 31–38. Baucom, D. H., Shoham, V., Mueser, K. T., Daiuto, A. D. & Stickle, T. R. (1998). Empirically supported couple and family interventions for marital distress and adult mental health problems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 31–38. Beattie, M. (1987). Codependent no more. New York: Harper/Hazelton. Beisser, A. R. (1991). The only gift: Thoughts on the meaning of friends and friendship. New York: Doubleday. Berman, C. (1990). Adult children of divorce speak out. New York: Simon & Schuster. Block, J. & Greenberg, D. (1980). Women and friendship. New York: Franklin Watts. Bloom, A. (1993). Love and friendship. New York: Simon & Schuster. 119

120

Selected Bibliography

Bornstein, R. F. (1992). The dependent personality: Developmental, social and clinical perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 112 (1), 2–23. Bornstein, R. F. (1995). Active dependency. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 183 (3), 64–77. Bornstein, R. F., Rossner, S. C., & Hill, E. L. (1994). Retest reliability of scores on objective and projective measures of dependency: Relationship to life events and interest interval. Journal of Personality Assessment, 62 (3), 398–415. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss. New York: Basic Books. Brody, N. (1972). Personality: Research and theory. New York: Academic Press. Brody, N. (1993). Intelligence and the behavioral genetics of personality. Nature, Nurture and Psychology, 166–178. Brothers, D. (1995). Falling backwards: An exploration of trust and self-experience. New York: Norton. Buss, D. M. (1994). The Evolution of desire, New York: Basic Books. Buss, D. M., & Cantor, N. (Eds.). (1989). Personality Psychology: Recent Trends and Emerging Directions. New York: Springer-Verlag. Caprara, G. V., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2004) Personalizing politics: A congruency model of political preference. American Psychologist, 59, (7). Cattell, R. B. (1974). In Lindzey & Gardner (Eds.). A history of psychology in autobiography, Vol. 7. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Cattell, R. B. (1979). Personality and learning theory, Vol. 11. New York: Springer Publishing. Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsvoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the sixteen personality factor questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Cattell, R. B. (1973). Personality and mood by questionnaire. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Cattell, R. B. (1987). Psychotherapy by structured learning theory. New York: Springer Publishing. Cattell, R. B. (1987). Religion from science. New York: Praeger. Cohen, Y. (1991). Grandiosity in children with narcissistic and borderline disorders: A comparative analysis. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 46, 307–324. Cole, M. & Cole, S. R. (1993). The development of children (2nd Ed.). New York: Scientific American Books. Coontz, S. (2005). Marriage, a History: How love conquered marriage. N.Y. Penguin Books. Cooper, A. & Stoltenberg, C. D. (1987). Comparison of a sexual enhancement and a communication training program on sexual and marital satisfaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 309–314. Cose, E. (1997). Color blind—Seeing beyond race in a race obsessed world. New York: Harper-Collins. Costa, P. T., Jr. & McCrae, R. R. (1978). Objective personality assessment. In M. Storandt, I. Siegler & M. Elias (Eds). The clinical psychology of aging. New York: Plenum.

Selected Bibliography

121

Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Still stable after all these years: Personality as a key to some issues in old age. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim (Eds.). Life-span development and behavior, Vol. 3. (65–102).New York: Academic Press. Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the Neo Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853–863. Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1993). Ego development and trait model of personality. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 20–23. Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised Neo Personality Inventory (NEOPI-R) and Neo Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T. Jr., & Widiger, T. A. (1994). (Eds.). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Cowdry, R. W. & Gardner, D. L. (1988). Pharmacotherapy of borderline personality disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 45, 111–119. Diamond, S. (1979). The roots of psychology: A sourcebook in the history of ideas. New York: Basic Books. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual review of psychology, 41, 417–440. Dunn, M. & Parry, G. (1991). Treatment outlines for borderline, narcissistic and histrionic personality disorders: The quality assurance project. Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry, 25 (3), 392–403. Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., Mochon, D. & Ariely, D. (2007) Selective versus unselective romantic desire: Not all reciprocity is created equal. Psychological Science. 18, 317–319. Eaves, L., Eyesenck, H. J. & Martin, N. G. (1989). Genes, culture and personality. New York: Academic Press. Eccles, J. S. Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & MacIver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents—experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101. Eichorn, D., Clausen, J., Haan, N., Monzik, M. & Mussen, P. (1981). Present and past in middle life. New York: Academic Press. El-Gvebaly, N., West, M., Maticka-Tyndale, E., & Pool, M. (1993). Attachment among adult children of alcoholics. Addiction, 88 (10), 1405–1411. Erikson, E. M. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton. Evans, D. R., Pellizzari, J. R., Culbert, B. J. & Metzen, M. E. (1993). Personality, marital and occupational factors associated with quality of life. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49 (4), 477–485. Eysenck, H. J. (1972). Psychology is about people. LaSalle, IL: Open Court. Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eyesenck Personality Questionnaire. San Diego, CA: Ed ITS. Eysenck, H. J. (1973). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological Inquiry (4), 147–178.

122

Selected Bibliography

Ezoe, S., Araki, S., Ono, Y., Kawakami, N. & Murata, K. (1995). Effects of marital status and position on personality traits in engineers of a computer manufacturing plant. Industrial Health, 33, 77–82. Fonagy, P., Leigh, T., Steele, M., Steele, H., Kennedy, R. & Mattoon, G. (1996). The relation of attachment status, psychiatric classification and response to psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64 (1), 22–31. Ford, M. R. & Widiger, T. A. (1989). Sex bias in the diagnosis of histrionic and antisocial personality disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 301–305. Forward, S. (1989). Toxic parents: Overcoming their hurtful legacy and reclaiming your life. New York: Bantam Books. Forward, S. & Tores, J. (1986). Men who hate women and the women who love them. New York: Bantam Books. Foster, D. A., Caplan, R. A. & Howe, G. W. (1997). Representatives of observed couple interaction: Couples can tell and it does make a difference. Psychological Assessment, 9 (3), 285–294. Friel, J. & Friel, L. (1988). Adult Children: The secrets of dysfunctional families. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications. Gray, J. (1992). Men are from mars women are from venus. New York: Harper Collins. Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: experimental investigations. New York: Academic Press. Guisinger, S. & Blatt, S. J. (1994). Individuality and relatedness: Evolution of a fundamental dialect. American psychologist, 49, 104–111. Hall, C. & Lindzey, G. (1970). Theories of personality. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hallowell, E. M. & Ratey, J. J. (1994). Driven to distraction. New York: Pantheon Books. Hendrick, C. & Hendrick, S. S. (1986). Theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 392–402. Hunt, M. (1993). The story of psychology. New York: Doubleday. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The Gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. Ilfeld, F. W., Jr. (1980). Understanding marital stressors: The importance of coping style. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 168 (6), 375–381. Iverson, A. & Baucom, D. H. (1990). Behavioral marital therapy outcomes: Alternate interpretations of the data. Behavior Therapy, 21, 129–138. Jacobson, N. S. & Moore, D. (1981). Spouses as observers of the events in their relationship. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49 (2), 269–277. Karney, B. R. & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method and research. Psychological bulletin, 18, 3–34. Kelly, J. B. (1982). Divorce: An adult perspective. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.). Handbook of developmental psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Selected Bibliography

123

Kennedy, P., Terdal, L. & Fusetti, L. (1993). The hyperactive child book. New York: Martines Press. Klohnen, E. C. & Shanhong, L. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: What is attractive-self-similarity, ideal similarity complimentarity or attachment security? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, (4), 709–722. Ko, K. J., Berg, C. A., Butner, J., Uchino, B. N. & Smith, T. W. (2007) Profiles of successful aging in middle-aged and older adult couples. Psychology and Aging. 22, 705–718. Kreisman, J. J. & Straus, H. (1989). I hate you don’t leave me: Understanding the borderline personality. New York: Avon. Krug, E. (1981). Interpreting 16PF profile patterns. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Leon, R., Gillum, B., Gillum, R., & Gouze, M. (1979). Personality stability over a thirty-year period: Middle age to old age. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 23, 245–259. Loevinger, J. (1987). Paradigms of personality. New York: Freeman. Lyons-Ruth, K. (1996). Attachment relationships among children with aggressive behavior problems: The role of disorganized early attachment patterns. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64 (1), 64–73. McCrae, R. R. (1982). Consensual validation of personality traits: Evidence from self-reports and ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 293–303. McCrae, R. R. (1994). New goals for trait psychology. Psychological inquiry (5), 148–153. McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1984). Emerging lives, enduring dispositions: Personality in adulthood. Boston: Little-Brown. McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1988). Recalled parent-child relations and adult personality. Journal of Personality, 56, 417–434. McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52 (5), 509–516. Markman, H. J., Renick, M. J., Floyd, F. J., Stanley, S. M. & Clements, M. (1993). Preventing marital distress through communication and conflict management training: A 4- and 5-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61 (1), 70–7. Miller, K. J. (1994). The co-dependency concept: Does it offer a solution for the spouses of alcoholics? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 11 (4), 339–345. Neugarten, B. L. (1979). Time, age and the life cycle. American Journal of Psychiatry, 136, 887–94. Nock, S. L. (1995). Commitment and dependency in marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57 (5), 501–514. O’Hanlon, W. & Weiner-Davis, M. (1989). In search of solutions: A new direction in psychotherapy. New York: Norton. Paris, J. (1994). Borderline personality disorder: A multidimensional approach. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

124

Selected Bibliography

Peabody, D. & Goldberg, L. R. (1989). Some determinants of factor structure from personality-trait descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 552–567. Piaget, J. (1962). The stages of the intellectual development of the child. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 26, 120–128. Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1967). The Child’s Conception of Space. New York: Norton. Preston, J., O’Neal, J. H. & Talaga, M. C. (1996). Handbook of clinical psychopharmacology for Therapists. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications. Prunine, D. M. & Carey, M. P. (1997). Interpersonal communication and sexual adjustment: The roles of understanding and agreement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65 (6), 1017–1025. Reich, J. (1991). Avoidant and dependent personality traits in relatives of patients with panic disorder, patients with personality disorder and normal controls. Psychiatry Research, 39 (1), 89–98. Reich, J. (1991). Using the family history method to distinguish relatives of patients with dependent personality disorder from relatives of controls. Psychiatry Research, 39 (3), 227–237. Richman, M. (1989). Stability of personality traits in the elderly demented. Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University. Ross, J. L. (1995). Conversational pitchbacks: Helping couples bat 1000 in the game of communication. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 6, 83–86. Royce, J. R. (1973). The conceptual framework for a multi-factor theory of individuality. In J.R. Royce (Ed.). Contributions of multivariate analyses to psychological theory. London: Academic Press. Ruesch, J. & Bateson, G. (1968). Communication: The social matrix of psychiatry. New York: Norton. Sahlins, M. D. (1965). On the sociology of primitive exchange. In M. Bantom (Ed.). The relevance of models for social anthropology. London: Transtock. Salamon, M. J. (1986). A basic guide to working with elders. New York: Springer Publishing. Salamon, M. J. (1986). Personality correlates of dementia. Paper presented at the 39th Meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, Chicago. Salamon, M. J. (1994). Marriage and marital counseling. In J. L. Ronch, W. VanOrnum & N. Stilwell (eds.). The counseling sourcebook: New York: Crossroads. Sargent, S. & Stafford, K. R. (1965). Basic teachings of the great psychologists. Garden City, NY: Dolphin. Schaie, K. W. & Parham, I. A. (1975). Stability of adult personality traits: Fact or fable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 146–158. Scharff, D. E. & Scharff, J. S. (1991). Object relations family therapy. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson. Schlesinger, K. & Groves, P. M. (1976). Psychology: A dynamic science. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.

Selected Bibliography

125

Schotte, C., DeDoncker, D., Maes, M., Cluydts, R. & Cosyns, P. (1993). MMPI assessment of the DSM-III-R histrionic personality disorder. Journal of Personality Assessment, 60 (3), 500–510. Shanong, L. & Klohner, E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: A couple centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 304–326. Shapiro, D. H., Schwartz, C. E. & Astin, J. A. (1996). Controlling ourselves, controlling our world: Psychology’s role in understanding positive and negative consequences of seeking and gaining control. American psychologist, 51 (12), 1213–1230. Sheehy, G. (1976). Passages: Predictable crises of adult life. New York: E. P. Dutton. Shiota, M. N., & Levenson, R. W. (2007) Birds of a feather don’t always fly farthest: Similarity in Big Five personality predicts more negative marital satisfaction trajectories in long-term marriages. Psychology and Aging, 22, 666–675. Siegel, J. (1992). Repairing Intimacy: An object relations approach to couples therapy. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson. Siegler, I. C. & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985). Health behavior relationships. In, J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.). Handbook of the psychology of aging, (2nd ed.). New York: VanNostrand-Reinhold. Siegler, I. C., George, L. K. & Okun, M. (1979). Cross-sequential analysis of adult personality. Developmental Psychology (15), 350–351. Skolnick, A. S. & Skolnick, J. H. (1989). Family in transition: Rethinking marriage, sexuality and children, (7th ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott Foreman. Stapel, D. & Blanton, H. (2004). From seeing to believing: Subliminal social comparisons affect implicit and explicit self-evaluators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, (4). Stevenson, J. & Meares, R. (1992). An outcome study of psychotherapy for patients with borderline personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149 (3), 358–362. Sternberg, R. J. & Ruzgis, P. (Eds.). (1994). Personality and intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Stone, M. H. (1988). Toward a psychobiological theory of borderline disorder. Dissociation, 1:2–15. Sullivan, H. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton. Synder, D. K. & Wills, R. M. (1989). Behavioral versus insight-oriented marital therapy: Effects on individual and interpersonal functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57 (1), 39–46. Tan, D. T. Y., & Singh, R. (1995) Attitudes and attraction: A developmental study of the similarity-attraction and dissimilarity-repulsion hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 975–986. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Men and women in conversation. New York: William Morrow. Thomas, A., Chess, S., & Birch, H. G. (1968). Temperament and behavior disorders in children. New York: New York University Press.

126

Selected Bibliography

Van der Kolk, B. A. (1987). Psychological trauma. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Vinokur, A., Schul, Y. & Caplan, R. D. (1987). Determinants of perceived social support: Interpersonal transactions, personal outlook, and transient affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 329–337. Waring, E. M., Patton, D. & Wister, A. V. (1990). The etiology of non-psychotic emotional illness. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 35 (1), 50–57. Weiner-David, M. (1992). Divorce busting. New York: Fireside. Weitz, S. (1974). Nonverbal communication. New York: Oxford University Press. Whisman, M. A., Vebelacker, L. A. & Weinstock, L. M. (2004) Psychopathology and marital satisfaction: The importance of evaluating both partners. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, (5), 830–838. Wilson-Schaef, A. (1986). Co-Dependence: misunderstood-mistreated. New York: Winston Press. Wilson-Schaef, A. (1987). When society becomes addicted. San Francisco: Harper Row. Woititz, J. G. (1983). Adult children of alcoholics. Pompano Beach, FL: Health Communications. Zimbardo, P. G., Ebbesen, E. B. & Maslach, C. (1977). Influencing attitudes and changing behavior, (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Index

abuse, 34; communication and, 110–11; sexual, 84; verbal, 63, 91–92 accommodation, 38, 39, 99, 100, 114–15 acquaintances, 5, 10 active listening, 118 ADHD. See Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Adler, Alfred, 15 adolescents, friendships of, 6, 8, 10–11 advice, sharing of, 10 age, 23 agreeableness, 20, 66 alcoholism, of parents, 80, 83, 87–88. See also codependency Allport, Floyd, 16 Allport, Gordon, 16, 17 animals, 29 Antisocial Personality Disorder, 26, 41 anxiety, 64 appreciation, 10 arguments, 114–15 astrology, 15 Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), 45, 52 attitudes, 22 attraction: chemical basis of, 29–30; codependent, 86; personality disorders in, 48–52, 65; personality test

measure of, 78; reasons for, 28–29; unhealthy, 90. See also passion attributes, 22 attribution theory, 22 Avoidant Personality Disorder, 26, 41 Axis I, 25 Axis II diagnosis, 25 balanced reciprocity, 2–3; definition of, 101; long-term, 102 behavior, 17, 25; prediction of, 25 Behavioral Marriage Therapy, 116, 117 Bernreuter Personality Inventory, 16 Bernreuter, Robert, 16 Big Five model. See five-factor trait model birth order, 15 body dysmorphic disorder, 62 Borderline Personality Disorder, 26, 41, 44–46; codependency in, 83; Narcissists and, 47–52; personality test scores of, 73 breadwinner, 30–31 Cattell, Raymond, 16, 17, 18–19 character, 14, 15, 16 child rearing, 100–101 children: choice to have, 111–12; friendships of, 5, 7; predisposition of, 114;

127

128

Index

reciprocity of, 3; sense of self, of, 7–8 Cloninger, C. Robert, 20 close friends, 4, 6–7 codependency, 79; characteristics of, 89; definition of, 81–83; moving past, 88–89; patterns related to, 86–87; personality disorders with, 83 Cognitive Behavioral Marriage Therapy, 116–17 cognitive therapy, 98–99 college, friendships in, 6 comfort: in friendships, 5–7; in relationship choice, 32–34 commitment, 94, 97, 99 communication: abuse and, 110–11; through arguments, 114–15; gendered patterns of, 109; intimacy in, 118; lack of, 112–13; in marriage, 109–10; between parents, 111–12; rules of, 117–18; about sex, 110; styles of, 108; in therapy, 115, 116 compatibility: compromise with, 99; in friendships, 6–7; in personality test scores, 71–72, 73–78, 106–8; relationship success and, 91–92, 94 compensation, in friendships, 8 compromise, 39, 99, 100 conflict, 99–100; in friendships, 9; resolution of, 114–15; therapy for, 117 conscientiousness, 20, 66 control, 36 crises. See life cycle stages criticism, by parents, 3 dementia, 22–23 Dependent Personality Disorder, 26, 41; codependency in, 83; complaints with, 56; in DSM IV, 55; Histrionics and, 53–54, 56–57, 59–65, 84–85, 90; personality test scores of, 73, 76; in therapy, 64 depression, 98–99 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (DSM IV), 40–41; Borderline Per-

sonality Disorder in, 43–44, 45–46; Dependent Personality Disorder in, 55; Histrionics in, 57; Narcissistic Personality Disorder in, 42–44 disassociation, 24 divorce: after therapy, 115–16; factors in, 92 domestic violence, 110–11 dopamine, 20, 21 DSM IV. See Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV Ebstein, Richard, 21 education, as divorce factor, 92 ego, 15 elements, 15 emotional health, in marriage, 93 emotional support, 10 enabling, 79, 81–82 Erikson, Erik, 8–9. See also life cycle stages Eros, 98 expectations, 36–38, 116 expressiveness, 94, 109 extramarital affairs, 51 extroversion, 19, 66; in dementia, 23; Eysenck’s perspective on, 17–18; friendship development with, 6 Eysenck, H. J., 17, 17, 18, 19 Eysenck Personality Inventory, 17 Eysenck’s Two-Factor Theory, 17, 18, 19 favors, 2 fear of rejection, 3 feedback, 118 Fiddler on the Roof, 30 fighting fair, 114–15 fight or flight, 24 five-factor trait model, 19, 20, 40; test example of, 68–70; test score interpretation from, 77–78; test scores with, 107 Freud, Sigmund, 15, 16 friend, 10

Index

friendship(s): in adolescence, 6, 8, 10–11; attachment in, 11–12; of children, 5, 7; close, 4, 6–7; in college, 6; comfort in, 5–7; compatibility in, 6–7; compensation in, 8; conflict tolerance in, 9; definitions of, 9–10; development of, 6–7, 9; hierarchy of, 4, 4, 10–11; identity and, 9, 10–11; Internet, x; intimacy in, 9; manners in, 1–2; in marriage, 118; personality evaluation in, 14; reciprocity in, 3, 5 Galen, 15, 18, 24 gambling, 88 gender(s), 28; communication patterns by, 109; genetic differences of, x; happiness and, 93–94; in parenting, 114; roles of, 30–31; understanding between, 110 genetics, 20–22; gender, x; predisposition of, 114 give-and-take, 2, 5 goals, shared, 102 happiness: genetics of, 20–21; longterm, 94; in marriage, 93–94 health, 24–25 hierarchy of friendships, 4, 4, 10–11 high school, 8 Hippocrates, 15 Histrionic Personality Disorder, 26, 41; characteristics of, 57–59; codependency in, 83; Dependents and, 53–54, 56–57, 59–65, 84–85, 90; in DSM IV, 57; personality test scores of, 73, 75–76; in therapy, 64 homework, therapeutic, 117 honesty, 87, 90 Human Genome Project, 20 humors, 15, 18 identity: Erikson’s stage of, 8, 10, 11; friendships and, 9, 10–11 immediate exchange, 101 immediate gratification, 101

129

individuality, 101 insecurity, 37–38, 104 Insight-Oriented Marital Therapy, 117 Internet, x intimacy: in communication, 118; definition of, 109–10; emotional, 96; Erikson’s stage of, 9, 10; in friendships, 9; lack of, 113 introversion, 18; age effects on, 23; Eysenck’s perspective on, 17; friendship development with, 6 “Inventory of Attitudes to Sex,” 18 life cycle stages, 8–9, 10, 11 life satisfaction. See satisfaction, with life long-term exchange, 101–2 love, 97–98, 99 love at first sight, 31–32 loyalty, 10 marital counseling, 37, 64 marriage: communication in, 109–10; platonic, 50, 113–14; rite of passage for, viii; successful, 91–94, 103–4, 118 McDougall, James, 19 medicine, 15 mental illness, 25 mimicry, 1 money, 30–31, 92 mutuality, 9 My Fair Lady, 35 Narcissistic Personality Disorder, 26, 41, 42–44; Borderlines and, 47–52; codependency in, 83; personality test scores of, 73 neighbors, 5 NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI), 19, 23, 66 NEO-PI. See NEO Personality Inventory neuroticism, 19, 66; in dementia, 23; Eysenck’s perspective on, 17–18

130

Index

New York Times, 20 Nock, Steven, 97 novelty-seekers, 20 obligation, 97 Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder, 26, 41 Openness to experience, 19–20, 66

platonic marriage, 50, 113–14 predisposition, 21, 114 Psychodynamic Marital Therapy, 117 psychogenic, 24 psychosomatic, 24 psychoticism, 17, 18 Pygmalion Effect, 35–36 quantitative taxonomy, 16

Paranoid Personality Disorder, 26, 41 parents: alcoholism of, 80, 83, 87–88; anger towards, 100; of Borderlines, 52; communication between, 111–12; conflicts between, 100, 105–6, 114; criticism by, 3; as in-laws, vii–viii, 106; of Narcissists, 52; patterns learned from, 3, 84–86, 112; reciprocity of, 3; sense of self and, 7–8. See also child rearing passion, 93, 94–95 passive-aggressive approach, 115 passivity, 115 peer groups, 8 perception, viii–ix Personal Data Sheet, 16 personality: assessment of, 13–17; dementia’s effects on, 23; development of, 15–16; history of, 14–17; immutability of, viii personality assessment, couple score sheets in, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79 personality disorders, x, 27, 53; anxious, 26; clusters of, 40–41, 55; deviant patterns of, 40–41; dramatic, 26, 55; eccentric, 25–26; erratic, 26, 55; fearful, 26, 55. See also specific personality disorders personality tests, 67; couple score sheets in, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 107; example of, 68–70; reliability in, 67; scoring of, 70–72, 73–79, 106–8 pets, 29 pheromones, 29–30 philosophy, 15 Piaget, Jean, 38

Ray (salesman), 7, 10 rebelliousness, 8 reciprocity, 3, 5. See also balanced reciprocity resentment, 115 respect, 37, 96–97 Richman, Marc, 23 role models, 8 satisfaction, with life, viii–ix, xi Scharff, David, 98 Scharff, Jill, 98 Schizoid Personality Disorder, 26, 41 Science Times, 20 selective attention, 116, 118 self-destructiveness, 82 self-esteem, 15, 89, 97 Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, 35–38 selfishness, 11–12 selflessness, 11–12 serotonin, 52 sex, 100. See also abuse; “Inventory of Attitudes to Sex”; passion sharing of advice, 10 shyness, 3 siblings, 105 Simon, Carly, 57–58 16PF. See Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF), 19, 66; dementia in, 23; reliability of, 67 teenagers. See adolescents, friendships of

Index

temperament, 14–15 Thanatos, 98 therapy: cognitive, 98–99; communication through, 115, 116; family, 105–6; outcomes of, 113, 117; for personality disorders, 64; types of, 116–17 thoughtfulness, 10 Thurstone, 19 tolerance, 94–95 traits, 14–15, 17 trait theory, 17–19 trauma, 24 trust, 95–96

131

trustworthiness, 10, 11 twins, 21 Van der Kolk, Bessel, 24 “A Variant Gene Tied to a Love of New Thrills,” 20 violence. See abuse; domestic violence web sites, social networking, x “What Keeps Husband and Wife Together” (Nock), 97 Woodsworth, Robert, 16 World War II veterans, 6