When
you think of safety, what comes to mind? OSHA standards for workplace
practices? Guidelines for preventing accidents at home? How about factors that
contribute to or characterize success in marriage? That’s my focus here. Specifically,
I focus on the critical role that types of safety play in having a “healthy”
marriage.
Why
the emphasis on healthy? The reason is historical. “Healthy marriage” became an
important way to express one of the chief goals of efforts over the past 15
years to help people strengthen their relationships and families through
community-level programs funded by the government. As various leaders
in this movement expressed early on, marriage for the sake of marriage was not the
goal as much as were healthy marriages (and relationships); those are the types
of relationships that most contribute to adult, child, and family well-being. While
there remain numerous ongoing discussions (and arguments) about programs and
strategies, the emphasis on healthy
was helpful, and it remains so to this day.
So,
what are the characteristics of healthy marriages and family relationships that
help adults and children to thrive? My colleague Howard Markman and I have long
argued that one of the best ways to answer this question is by considering four
types of safety[i]:
physical safety, emotional safety,
commitment safety, and community safety. These categories encompass the vast
array of research and theory about success in relationships, marriage, and
family—even where the literatures rarely use the term “safety.”
Physical Safety
This
type of safety is a bedrock requirement for a healthy marriage or other
relationship. There should be no threat of being physically harmed, nor should
either partner be physically or emotionally intimidated by the other. I have
had extensive discussions with many experts in domestic violence over many
years’ time, and one red flag that they widely agree on is fear—fear of being
hurt or controlled by one’s partner, or fear that others will be hurt. Unfortunately,
not all who are in danger have as much fear as they should, which can be one
factor contributing to their remaining in harm’s way, but many of the people in
the most unsafe relationships have chronic fear of their partners.
Beyond
situations of extreme danger, many couples have had arguments that crossed the
line into aggressive behavior such as pushing, shoving or slapping. While such
behaviors may not rise to the level of abuse that those who work in domestic
violence shelters typically see, such aggressive behavior is common in the
relationships of young people,[ii] including
in the premarital history of couples who are newly married.[iii] Unsurprisingly,
aggression in relationships is associated with lower relationship quality and a
host of other risks.
All
aggression in intimate relationships can be dangerous. The most dangerous
patterns involve aggression that leads to injuries and/or ongoing control and
intimidation.[iv]
If you or someone you know is in an unsafe relationship, know that there are
people who are eager to help. The phone number for the National Domestic
Violence Hotline is 800-799-7233.
(For
a discussion on the complexity of domestic violence and challenges in helping
individuals and couples in the context of relationship education, see this paper.)
Emotional Safety
There
are scores of studies documenting that couples who struggle in marriage, and
who are most likely to divorce, tend to have more frequent and intense
conflicts.[v] Howard
Markman and I refer to specific patterns of negativity as “communication danger signs” while similar patterns
were more creatively named the “four horsemen of the apocalypse” by John Gottman.
Regularly
getting into heated exchanges or withdrawing into silence is common—but so is
divorce. The patterns we and others describe are hallmarks of marital distress.
Negative
patterns of interaction are not hard to spot. It’s pretty clear when an
argument is escalating or when one partner is putting down or showing contempt
for the other. What’s not as obvious is the way such patterns wear away what
people deeply desire in marriage: emotional safety. Emotional safety means being able to be yourself and feel connected
to your partner. When a couple has this, each partner can raise concerns and
express vulnerabilities without fear of rejection. Emotional safety is a work
in progress for most couples, and it does not mean arguments never get heated. But
if each partner does what he or she can to make their relationship emotionally
safe, that couple is well on the way to a great marriage.
Commitment Safety
A
couple in a thriving, healthy marriage does not merely have a solid, day-to-day
connection. There will also be an abiding sense of having a future together, a
sense that provides a secure attachment that benefits both the spouses and
children.[vi]
Security about the future—commitment
safety—is crucial because most people do not invest in something, whether a
financial asset or a relationship, without some reasonable confidence in what
is out there on the horizon.
A
robust literature demonstrates that a strong sense of commitment is associated
with curtailing various negative impulses while fostering behaviors that are
good for the relationship.[vii] For example, small and positive sacrifices are
believed to signal commitment from one partner to the other, enhancing the
sense that the relationship can be trusted.[viii] Commitment in action also means prioritizing
the relationship among competing alternatives, including protecting a marriage
from neglect or affairs.
It
takes two to tango, as they say. When both partners are committed to the dance,
it’s likely to be a lasting and close one.
Community Safety
Every
theme I’ve covered so far has to do with attitudes and behavior. Although we
often think of these things as under the control of individuals, attitudes and
behaviors do not operate in a vacuum. Community
safety refers to the context of a marriage. Is the environment safe? Are
there sufficient resources? Jobs? Health care? Is there stress from poverty or anxiety
about crime? Are transportation and good food accessible? These are far from
academic questions for many families, and they highlight how important context
is for marital health.
Think
of a couple like a plant. All other things being equal, the plant with better
soil, nutrients, and mix of rain and moisture thrives. While some hardy plants
make it in poor soil, the odds are longer. Paradoxically, it may be both more
difficult and more crucial for couples in the toughest contexts to hang
together and support each other in life. But such couples will have a harder
time. In terms of personal advice, we all ought to try to play the hand we are dealt
as well as we can, but make no mistake—the hand matters, and many couples need
more of a different sort of hand to help them up.
Policy-makers
can keep looking for ways to alleviate contextual strains on families through
wiser incentives, elimination of disincentives to family stability, and
policies that may increase resources for those who are most vulnerable.
Putting It All Together
These
four types of safety are interrelated in the overall health of a marriage. For
example, Howard Markman and I have observed that couples who are not able to
manage emotional safety tend to threaten the whole future of their marriages
when their arguments escalate. “Why did I marry you anyway?” “Why should we
stay together?” “Maybe you should move out!” Such statements are often uttered
in moments of great frustration, but they do lasting damage to whatever level
of commitment safety a couple has built up. Conversely, as noted earlier,
commitment favors preserving the relationship. It not only inhibits negative
impulses of the moment, but can lead to an expansive sense of a shared future
that leads to positive investments by both partners for the good of the
marriage.
Contextual
stress decreases the odds of marital success and family stability in many ways.[ix] External
stressors exacerbate negative patterns of interaction, for instance.[x] Further,
financial hardships make it difficult for some who value marriage to
contemplate the possibility of achieving a lasting marriage themselves.[xi] These
are complex challenges to overcome.
The
good news about the interrelatedness of these dimensions of safety is that
making progress on one dimension can help lead to growth in another. I have
heard plenty of people argue that one dimension is pre-eminent, and, therefore,
that dimension should get the most attention. I say, instead, to go after the
one that is nearest. Start making progress on any dimension while you consider
how to tackle the others. That goes for your own life as well as for all your
efforts to help others.
Few
would say that safety is the chief end of life. Without safety and security,
however, there isn’t much of a platform for those things that have the deepest
meaning in family life. Thus, some types of safety comprise the means to the
most important ends.
[i] The comprehensive list
of four aspects of safety, as discussed here, appears in our relationship
education curricula, with the full model first appearing in: Stanley, S. M., Markman,
H. J., Jenkins, N. H., Rhoades, G. K., Noll, L., Ramos, L. D. (2006). Within Our Reach Leader Manual. Denver:
PREP Educational Products, Inc.; We
presented earlier discussions of safety as a theme for understanding
relationship quality and health in various publications, including: Stanley, S.M., Markman,
H.J., and Whitton, S. (2002). Communication, conflict, and commitment:
Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey. Family Process, 41, 659-675.; Stanley, S. M. (2005). The power of commitment. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.;
Stanley, S. M. (2007). Assessing couple and marital relationships: Beyond form
and toward a deeper knowledge of function. In S. Hofferth and L. Casper
(Eds.), Handbook of Measurement Issues in Family Research (85 - 99). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
[ii] For example: Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H.
K., and Short, J. W. (2007). Observed initiation and reciprocity of physical
aggression in young, at-risk couples. Journal
of Family Violence, 22, 101 - 111.; Rhoades, G. K., Stanley,
S. M., Kelmer, G., & Markman, H. J. (2010). Physical aggression in
unmarried relationships: The roles of commitment and constraints. Journal of Family Psychology, 24,
678-687.
[iv] Johnson, M. P. and Leone, J. M. (2005). The differential
effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence: Findings from
the National Violence Against Women Survey.
Journal of Family Issues, 26,
322-349.;
Hardesty, J. L, Crossman,
K. A., Haselschwerdt, M. L., Raffaelli, M., Ogolsky, B. G., and Johnson, M.
P. (2015). Toward a standard approach to operationalizing coercive control and
classifying violence types. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 77,
833 – 843.
[vii] e.g., Rusbult, C. E., Zembrodt,
I. M., & Gunn, L. K. (1982). Exit,
voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses
to dissatisfaction in romantic involvement. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1230-1242.; Slotter, E. B., Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C.
N. Pond, R. S., Lambert, N. M., Bodenhausen, G. V., and Fincham, F. D.
(2012). Putting the brakes on aggression toward a romantic partner: The
inhibitory influence of relationship commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2), 291-305.
[ix] I do not agree with some
of the reasoning in this piece but the authors make many excellent points: Karney, B. R., and Bradbury, T. N. (2005). Contextual Influences on Marriage: Implications for
Policy and Intervention. Current Directions
In Psychological Science, 14(4),
171-174.