by Reuben E. Gross, PhD, ABPP, LMFT

This article addresses the issues of couples who say, "We have a communication problem," "We're always fighting." It will be shown that in a reasonably short time, couples can master respectful arguing which will result in successful complaint and problem-solving skills which are a necessary ingredient for mutual understanding and a harmonious relationship.

Note: For the sake of grammatical simplicity, I generally use "he" and "his" with the understanding that all points made in the article are relevant to both genders.

Couples who say about themselves "We have a communication problem," "We can't communicate" or "We're always fighting," generally mean that they do not problem-solve effectively. In these couples, a potentially constructive discussion on how to address a thorny problem that they both recognize, or a solution-seeking argument on how to proceed in a specific situation where they know that they disagree, or addressing one person's complaint, quickly deteriorates into a futile—and sometimes ugly—fight. The purpose of this article is to explain how people can:

1. Comfortably express their honest thoughts, feelings or opinions on any matter as well as listen to each other attentively,

2. Make a complaint, discuss sensitive issues, disagree, and even argue their point of view assertively without fighting,

3. Arrive at excellent solutions that are highly satisfactory to both partners, or at least, compromise solutions they can both live with.

4. Change the household atmosphere from a state of tension to one of peace and harmony. Are all these goals really possible? Absolutely!

Three Different Ways of Relating: Cooperate, Fight, Withdraw
Dr. Karen Horney, one of Sigmund Freud's famous students, once remarked that people can interact in three modes: cooperate, fight or withdraw. It would seem that in a healthy marriage only the first of these modes of behavior is acceptable: cooperate i.e., interact and stay involved in a constructive, mutually beneficial manner. Although living in peace and harmony with one's spouse in a cooperative and mutually accommodating manner is the goal, some couples live from one fight to another. In extreme cases, they fight frequently over everything and anything; and neither knows when (or over what issue) the next explosion will take place. They live in intermittent or even constant disharmony.
In other cases, the fighting is less frequent but fighting is a constant menace that hovers over them and erupts whenever there is a frustration, disappointment, or difference of opinion. Many individuals have reached a point of exhaustion in their fighting or a sense of futility in their ability to resolve differences to the point that they "swallow their problems" and keep their thoughts to themselves. They avoid raising (even reasonable) complaints, or discussing problems for reasons of self preservation. They see their withdrawal from each other as the only approach they know to avoid fighting. A spouse might say that he/she avoids his /her partner "to save my sanity," "save the peace," or "not make things worse." Unfortunately, sweeping the problem under the rug by avoidance or withdrawal from confrontation is not the answer to the problem(s). Such individuals yearn to live with each other in peace and harmony, but just don't know how to achieve this dream.

A. Characteristics of a Fight & How It Differs From an Argument

1. A Fight is an Argument That Has Gone Awry.
When people express opposing or differing views respectfully, they are arguing. When they are not respectful in their attitude, words, or behavior they have crossed a line: they are no longer arguing, they are fighting. The fighter might interrupt, raise his voice angrily, overtalk, or fail to give his opponent an opportunity to express his point of view. When the fighter does listen, he might do so impatiently, with half an ear, and may be quick to demean, minimize or discount the value of his opponent's facts, feelings or opinions. The fighter might also be sarcastic, insult the other person's intelligence, use verbal or nonverbal techniques (make faces, roll eyes) to express anger, belligerence or disdain.

The attitude of the fighter is "I'm right, you're wrong" and "I know what I'm talking about, you don't." With domineering individuals the attitude is "It's my way or the highway." The fighter is looking to impose his wish upon the other person and is shooting for a win-lose situation.

2. The Nineteen Rules of Engagement For Constructive Arguing
As part of my communication program, I introduce the couple to "The Nineteen Rules of Engagement" for constructive arguing. Arguing is part of the problem-solving process, and therefore an important ingredient in the relationship. People should argue constructively when they have differences about a matter. However, once they violate one of the nineteen rules, they've crossed a line, they are no longer arguing. They have done something hostile and are in the beginning stages of a fight. Even a single violation of the nineteen rules is like taking the ball off the court in sports. You've crossed a line; you're not playing the game anymore.

Learning the Nineteen Rules
In order to sensitize each partner to the nineteen rules of good communication, I have them play the role of husband and wife in a script of two partners driving on a highway and fighting over the husband's driving. I wrote the script to dramatize the nineteen rules. After each spouse's comment, we analyze the violations made by that person. Sometimes a two-word comment can have three violations…and a single statement five or six! The couple is then taught how to say exactly what they "have on their mind" in a non-inflammatory fashion as we "rewrite" the script right there in session. What each person "should have said" at each point in the fight is governed by the list of nineteen desirable behaviors (that are written side-by-side with the nineteen violations). Each spouse has both lists in his hand as we reenact the original script. Couples who go through this experience are amazed at how easy it is to violate the nineteen rules so quick into the complaint/argument. In fact, they frequently identify with the couple in the script in that the complaint/argument that they are dramatizing never saw the light of day. It began as a full-fledged fight. It went from 0-100 in a split second. As we analyze the fight, couples are impressed at how rapidly they become proficient at spotting violations of the "husband" and "wife" whom they are representing, and how easy it is (if you know what to do) to stop the fight cold and get on with the order of business (in this case, the original complaint by the wife about her husband's speeding).

3. Some of the Differences Between an Argument and a Fight
In both an argument and a fight two people disagree and in both situations each person would prefer to have his own way. However:

• In an argument, both people politely state their position, give their reasons or supporting evidence and listen carefully to their partner's explanation of his position. In a fight, they rarely do any of the above.
• In an argument, both people are open to new ideas and are willing to modify or switch their position. In a fight, the participants are close-minded to new ideas and rigid in their stance.
• In an argument, the participants are not ego involved with their positions. In a fight they are ego involved.
• In an argument, there is no battle of wits or a desire to control; in a fight there is.
• In an argument, both parties focus on the problem to be solved. There is a willingness to explore the situation as thoroughly as possible and a desire to come up with a solution that is agreeable to both parties. The goal is win-win.
• The above-mentioned factors are absent in a fight where the desire is to shove one's opinion down the other person's throat. The goal is win-lose.
• In an argument, the participants may attack the other person's position or logic but show respect for each other. In a fight, the participants interrupt, put each other down, minimize their partner's feelings or opinions, and show disrespect in many different ways.
• An argument is actually a bonding activity and enhances the relationship. A fight diminishes the relationship.
• After an argument, both contestants are at peace with each other, and glad that they have either solved the problem or at least have agreed upon a working formula. They are friendly and happy with each other. They have no fear of tackling future problems.
• After a fight, both contestants are frustrated, disappointed and alienated. They may also be and hurt, and surely angry because of what was said (and because of what should have been said, but was not). And for all their time, effort and energy not only has nothing has been solved but they are worse off now than they were when they began.
• As a consequence of the negative feelings engendered by a fight both individuals are less likely to compromise or accommodate each other when the next problem arises. Worse, they are wary of addressing new problems. Some fights end when one person gives in (perhaps because of sheer exhaustion, a sense of futility, or a fear that the fight will get worse) ...the winner takes all, and the matter is closed. This is not good.
• In a marriage—or any friendly relationship, the goal should always be win-win. A win-lose situation is equal to a lose-lose situation.

B. The Important Role of an Argument in Relationships

1. Salient features of an Argument
A constructive or friendly argument is characterized by a respectful exchange of ideas by people who differ on how to identify or address a problem. Each person tries to convince his partner that he is right by logical presentation of credible evidence including facts, logical reasons, past personal experiences, reports from people who have solved similar problems, expert opinions or recommendations from reliable sources etc to justify his point of view. This is good. There is nothing wrong with believing that you are right, nor in pushing your point of view by respectful attempts to put forth your reasons for your position so as to win over your partner to your point of view.

In many situations, personal preferences rather than logical justifications are placed on the scale. In such cases, this should be clearly stated, weighed in by the partner with respect and care as an emotional factor quite apart from logic and reason. In a friendly argument neither partner is glued to his position and both listen carefully to their opponent's views. Both have open minds and are willing to be convinced that their position should be modified or even abandoned. Most importantly, friendly arguers are not ego involved in getting their way, but are looking for a solution to the problem that is agreeable to both, i.e., a win-win situation.

2. Arguing is Good
Unfortunately arguments between individuals, especially between people who are related, live with each other, or are otherwise emotionally involved tend to become heated and deteriorate into fights. Consequently, the word argument has taken on negative connotations in our culture. When a person says, "I don't want to argue" he really means, "I don't want to fight." But in fact, people can argue without fighting. Webster defines "argument" simply as "a debate or discussion in which there is disagreement." The word has no negative connotations. When working with couples, I explain that the word refers to an exchange of ideas by people who differ in their opinions; there is no reason why arguments cannot be friendly. When an argument is used as a tool by spouses to solve their problems or resolve their differences, it can be a most constructive and solution seeking behavior. Consequently, whenever there is a difference of opinion an argument is a good thing to have. How else can people solve their differences? An argument is good; (a fight is bad).

3. The Need to Argue, The Importance of Arguing, The Beauty of Arguing
Since it is most unlikely that that two people will have the exact same opinion on everything, and each person usually wishes to further his point of view (and is entitled to do so), arguments are inevitable and indeed helpful. In a solution-seeking argument, both people will emerge with more knowledge about the subject discussed than before the argument began and might be glad (or even grateful) that they were exposed to contrary facts and alternate solutions. After a good argument the couple may arrive at a solution which both agree is better than the original position of each person. At worst, each person may still believe that his own original position is excellent, but since his partner opposes that approach, the couple will arrive at a solution that is acceptable to both. When an argument ends, especially a good long one that may have dragged on for days weeks or even months, both parties may be weary but they are satisfied and are on friendly terms with each other. The final plan, solution or decision will have been arrived at jointly, perhaps laboriously, but at least peacefully and with good will.

C. Example of an Argument
Arguments can include topics that are mundane, sublime, or ridiculous. Many couples are "equal opportunity" arguers (or fighters) and will do so at the drop of a hat. Below is an example of an argument in a matter that is limited in scope with no history of previous fights or negative feelings. Let's explore the characteristics of an argument and the various possibilities that might take place.

1. Both Spouses Express Their Views and Give Their Reasons
A couple agrees to take their vacation at a hotel but disagree as to which hotel. In an argument (as distinct from a fight) both spouses listen to each other's point of view, and their reasons for making that choice. In this case, husband argues for hotel "A" because he likes the golf course on campus; and wife argues for hotel "B" because she likes their spa, steam room and pool.

Wife might try to entice husband to her hotel by reminding him of her hotel's excellent tennis instructor, and husband might entice wife to his hotel by reminding her of the ballroom dancing program at his preferred hotel.

2. Both Spouses Are Open to Their Mate's Objections or Counterarguments
This argument can play out in a number of ways. Let's start with scenario one. When wife reminds husband of the mosquito problem they had previously experienced at his preferred hotel, and husband reminds wife of the poor food problem they had both experienced at her preferred hotel, they both admit the accurateness of their spouses objection to their preferred hotel, willingly give up their original positions, and jointly choose hotel "C." They are both happy that they had the argument because they are now better off than they would have been had they not exchanged their views and learned (in this case: were reminded about something they had forgotten) about the weakness of their original position.

Of course, many problems that couples face are much more complicated than this, but the basic principles stand. When people express their position, give their reasons for it, and are open to information from their partner they will sometimes learn the weaknesses of their own position (in this case the mosquitoes or the poor food), and at other times learn the strength of their opponent's position (tennis instruction, ballroom dancing). In the end, they will weigh all the pros and cons and will generally end up with a solution that is better than their original choice.

2. Both Spouses Are Open to a Rebuttal of Their Counterargument
(Scenario Two) When husband counters that the mosquito problem was last August and their proposed trip is in December, wife drops her objection. When wife counters that the food problem no longer exists because her friend reported that wife's preferred hotel has a new chef and the food is excellent, husband drops his objection. Both show an open mind for a counter argument to their original objection.

3. Each Spouse is Willing to Accommodate the Other
(Scenario Three) What happens now? Since both hotels are now back in the running, and neither spouse has an objection to the other's preference, the situation presents the couple with an excellent opportunity for accommodation and demonstration of a desire to please. For example, the husband might say: I know how important the spa and steam room is to you, so let's go to your hotel and I don't mind driving ten minutes to the nearest golf course.

Or the wife might say: I know how much you enjoy "A's" golf course and since they have a good spa and a nice swimming pool, I'll forego the steam room this time. In this scenario, the person who was selfless did so on his own initiative and both partners are comfortable with the decision. The accommodating spouse has built up good will.

4. Spouses Seek Out and Agree Upon a Compromise Position
(Scenario four) For whatever complicated reasons each person still wants to go to the hotel of his choice and neither person will accept the other person's choice. Since this is an argument, and not a fight, they are both looking for a solution. They want to go on vacation with each other, so they both reluctantly give up their first choice and settle on "C." In this situation, their final choice "C" is less preferable than their original choice, but it is a solution they can both live with. Although somewhat disappointed for not getting their way, both are happy that they solved the problem and there are no hard feelings.

5. Exceptions to the Rule
Understandably, the example cited above is fairly straightforward and comparatively easy. Many of life's problems are considerably more complicated and do not lend to easy solutions. Further, in some situations, feelings ride high because of the chronic nature of the problem to be solved or past hurts and lingering feelings of resentment for having been ignored, hurt or angered in the past by the spouse (or by a previous partner, or even by a parent). Understandably, adding negative emotional components to the argument complicates matters.

At other times, a person may have personal preferences that have nothing to do with logic or reason. In fact the "reasons" presented are rationalizations to support his position but not the real motivation behind his choice. In such a case, the individual should clearly bring this fact out into the open and delineate the hidden agenda behind his argument rather than just push forth "reasons" to support his point of view.

Yes, there are exceptions to the structure of an argument as presented here, and many arguments will experience unexpected twists and turns, but the principles described above generally hold. If both people are honestly looking for a solution and treat each other respectfully, and ideas are exchanged with an open mind, a solution is usually found. It is also true that in some cases the couple has no choice but to "agree to disagree." In such a case, the decision should be postponed. If a lot of time has elapsed, and the decision can no longer be postponed, then the agreed upon solution may end up favoring one person. However, every attempt should be made to keep the other person as happy as possible. And the person who gave in now has "money in the bank" and can draw on this the next time the couple is involved in a hotly contested decision.

For more information on how to argue successfully, click here for "Disagree, Yet Argue Respectfully and Constructively."

Hope For The Future

Clearly unresolved differences between spouses result in frustrations, annoyances and disappointments, which spawn a more painful layer of emotions and attitudes including ill will, bitterness, anger, and depression. These emotions set the stage for feelings of futility and hopelessness, indifference to the partner's happiness, and even feelings of revenge (if he could hurt me by doing "X," I could hurt him by doing "Y"). This type of thinking initiates a vicious cycle and a spiraling downward into even more negative couple interactions.

This situation can be remedied. In an overwhelming majority of cases couples who fight, can—and do—transform old habits and adopt new patterns of behavior within a reasonable period of time. In fact, I am no longer surprised at how many couples dramatically change the climate of their household after a few sessions by scrupulously adhering to the nineteen rules, by playing the role of referee or umpire (as I instruct them to do) and calmly "blowing the whistle" (rather than counterattack) when their partner takes the ball off the court by violating one of the accepted rules of engagement.

Stopping the Vicious Cycle & Initiating a Benign Cycle
Understandably, treating each other with respect is only the first step. Respect during an argument or when one person airs a complaint may stem the slippery slope from argument to fight, but respect in itself does not solve the problem(s). However, a respectful approach to the feelings and opinions of one's partner does create a benign atmosphere and a safe forum for addressing the underlying problem(s). Thus a new spirit of cooperation and friendliness takes hold and sets the stage for the more difficult steps that must be taken to address the various negative behaviors, harmful interactions and underlying relationship deficits that must be modified.

As we begin resolving these underlying problems, we reduce the secondary consequences of those problems, viz., the hurt, disappointment, ill will, anger, etc. and the other negative emotions enumerated above. We have now stopped the vicious cycle and have begun a benign cycle. The cycle of resentment and indifference—or worse, anger and spite which elicits more negative behavior or separation and indifference gives way to a spirit of mutual concern, cooperation and bonding. Changing the mode of interaction from fighting to cooperating brings the couple so much closer to their goals of living in peace, harmony and love with each other. It can be done!

For instructions on how to print this article please go to the top of this page.

(TOP)

The Difference Between Talking and Communicating

by Reuben E. Gross, PhD, ABPP, LMFT

Summary: Getting the message across to the other person is the essence of communication. Therefore, the communicator should be able to: 1. Express himself clearly, concisely and in a friendly manner, 2. Use skill in gearing his words to the setting and context of the situation as well as the person to whom he is talking, and 3. Make sure that he is understood. In all relationships, but especially in the context of a marriage or couple relationship, the speaker should also encourage and be warmly receptive and sensitive to his partner's communications.

Please note: Neither gender wins an Emmy for communication. Yet, if the author will alternate between “he” and “she” in order to be “fair” to both genders, it can be confusing to the reader. For the sake of simplicity, the author will begin with “he” when discussing the “radio speaker,” and then switch genders, using the word “she” for the remainder of the article. All of the author’s points are relevant to both sexes.

Are Talking and Communicating the Same?
Many people have never considered the difference between “talking” and “communicating.” In fact, talking and communicating are two different activities.

Talking is uttering words with the goal of getting a message across; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't’t. Communicating refers to one step further in the process: it is the successful transmission of a message. When a person talks to his partner and there is no communication, the relationship will suffer.

Do Radio Announcers Talk Or Communicate?
In choosing a metaphor to illustrate my point may I offer that of a radio blaring away in an empty bedroom. The person who is talking on the radio may be thousands of miles away from that empty bedroom. He has no idea who—if anybody—in that room is listening to him (or that the room and the radio exist in the first place). And even if someone did step into the room at some point, the radio speaker would have no idea who the potential listener might be. Nor would the speaker know whether that "someone" is paying attention, is interested in what he's saying, or understands the concepts proposed or the terminology used to express them. In short, the speaker does not know anything about "the listener," nor can he adjust his words to make them more intelligible or interesting to "the listener" in any way. The radio speaker simply talks, and hopes that someone, somewhere out there is listening, and understands what he is talking about. But all this is wishful thinking. For all he knows, his microphone isn't even plugged in. Consequently, no one is listening to him and he is talking to the four walls of the studio. But the speaker would have no clue about this while reading his carefully prepared script and making his points with energy and enthusiasm. Unfortunately, many of us reenact a scenario which resembles the problem of the radio announcer when we talk to a "listener" while focusing on our own desires --often, in a burst of emotion. In such instances, we frequently fail to focus on the listener and his/her needs. We are often remiss in adjusting our words or thoughts to the situation, the specific context and setting in which we may be at the time, and the receptivity of the person we are trying to influence.

How To Maximize Communication
As one can gather from the aforementioned metaphor of the radio speaker, communicating a message entails a number of steps. Before she says a word, the speaker must make sure that she has the full attention of her target listener. If he is busy doing something, she should ask if she may interrupt. If it is not convenient for her partner to talk at that time, they should agree on a specific time to talk. The speaker must stick to the topic that is on her mind, be self-aware enough to know her true feelings on the matter, and clear in her mind as to how she wishes to approach the subject. She does not have to figure out a complicated strategy as regards the progress of the conversation, but she should be aware of how she wishes to begin. She should say what is on her mind in a clear voice, adjust her rate of speech and volume to the technical barriers between them, e.g., cell phone receptivity, physical distance or ambient noise level (TV, kids fighting, etc.) She should speak clearly, express herself accurately, and get to the point as quickly as is reasonable, depending upon the complexity of the problem.

In addition to the above steps, she should keep her eyes focused on the person to whom she is talking. She should follow the listener’s facial expressions, nodding of the head and other non-verbal as well as verbal sources of feedback to ensure that her message is being received and understood. If a person neglects to do all of these subtasks, she is not doing her best to assure communication, she is just talking.

Sometimes the Speaker is Lucky
As noted, if the speaker fails to take the proper steps to communicate, the speaker did not communicate properly…she just talked. Sometimes however, in spite of all the speaker’s failings, she does get her point across and her mere talking actually becomes a communication. This could happen if the speaker is fortunate enough to have a boyfriend/husband who is not only perceptive, but acutely attuned to her. But this is pure luck. No one should depend on luck because in real life, the speaker will not find out whether or not she successfully communicated her point until later when the damage has already been done. This is especially true in case she failed to communicate something important, or asked him to do something that had a time limit.

Summary
Clearly, talking is not always communicating. If a person wants to communicate with another, it is primarily the responsibility of the speaker to make sure that the transmission of her message actually takes place. And even after following all the rules of good communication, if the speaker has any doubts about her success in transmitting her message, she can always say to the listener “This is important to me, and I want to make sure that you understood me, would you please tell me what I just said, or what I am asking you to do.” When she is satisfied that he understands, she may then proceed to the next step in those situations where she is asking for some action on her partner’s part. She should not assume that just because he understands her, it means that he agrees with what she said, or is willing to comply with her wishes. She should then ask if he agrees with what was said, and will he comply with her request.

Now, in communication within a couple, there is a second requirement: namely that the speaker also be a listener. The speaker must pay careful attention to what the other person has to say on the subject, and be ready to encounter disagreement. When each person is both a speaker and listener, it enables the discussion or argument to go back and forth respectfully, and step by step, until there is mutual understanding of each other’s position. For good communication to take place, the discussants are not required to agree on the spot or come to an immediate solution to the problem. They are only required to express honestly, clearly and respectfully what is on their minds, and listen carefully to each other so that they will understand what is on their partner’s mind. Good communication is the first step in problem solving and in relationship building.

For instructions on how to print this article please go to the top of this page.

(TOP)

The A-B-C's of Good Communication

Getting the True Message Across is the Essence of Communication.

by Reuben E. Gross, PhD, ABPP, LMFT

Summary: Both speaker and listener play an important role in bringing about good communication. The speaker should say what he truly means and be clear and unambiguous in his statements. The listener should be fully attentive. Both should take precautionary steps to avoid misinterpretations. Examples of breakdowns in communication between partners are given to illustrate the points made in this article. Since neither gender wins an Emmy for communication, to be fair to both genders, the author will use "he" and "she" at different times with the understanding that all of his points are relevant to both genders.

People Communicate Both Facts and Emotions
People communicate to request information or to transfer information to each other. Sometimes the information consists of concepts, facts, or data. At other times it consists of emotions, feelings and attitudes. In a business setting, at school, and generally speaking outside of the home, the facts are more important and the emotions are secondary. TV's star detective, Sgt. Friday, invariably put it this way when he interviewed a witness to a crime: "Just the facts, Ma'am."

However, with regard to the progression, growth, and improvement of personal relationships, emotions play a primary role. With people who aspire to be close, such as husband and wife, an honest, respectful, reciprocal sharing of feelings, attitudes and emotions is of fundamental importance in building the relationship. Understandably, this sharing is valuable only when there is an adherence to the basic facts of the situation, rather than distortions or misinterpretations by either partner.

The Goal of Communication is to Get The True Message Across
When the process of communication, getting the true message across, breaks down, the failure may be due to a shortcoming on the part of the speaker, listener or both. At the risk of oversimplifying a complicated matter, let's break down the communication process into three components: "A," "B," and "C."

Overview of the A-B-C's of Good Communication

Let "A" represent the exact thoughts or emotions of the speaker.

Let "B" represent the actual words that come out of the speaker's mouth.

Let "C" represent what the listener "hears" i.e. his understanding or interpretation of what was said.

In a Perfect Communication "A" = "B" = "C"

"Let Thine Ears Hear What Your Mouth Speaketh" Talmud-Brachot

Ideally, the person wants to convey his true thoughts on the subject ("A"), expresses those exact thoughts in words ("B"), and is understood by the listener ("C") exactly as the communication was intended to be conveyed. Let's explore this matter further:

In a healthy relationship, it is the speaker's right and responsibility to say what is on his mind i.e., share his thoughts and feelings with his partner. Colloquially, many people praise themselves with, "I say what I mean and I mean what I say." In such a case, what he has on his mind, and what he actually says is the same. Full communication includes positive as well as negative sentiments. A good communicator will transmit such positive sentiments as love, praise and appreciation, but he will also carefully express such negative sentiments as anger, hurt, disappointment, jealousy or other painful emotions when he believes that tactfully conveying these emotions will be helpful to the relationship. A good communicator is aware that even negative feelings can be expressed sensitively and in a constructive manner, and he will do so when necessary because he knows that these feelings are an important part of the relationship and that sharing them is the path to the recognition and solution of problems. When a person is skilled at expressing both positive and negative thoughts and emotions, we have the first part of an excellent communication process since "A"= "B" and the listener gets to hear exactly what is on the speaker's mind.

But often, the speaker does not say what is on his mind, or, if he does, he fails to get his point across. In both cases there is a breakdown in the communication and a resultant gap in the relationship. Let's consider some of the reasons why "A," "B," and "C" might not be equal to each other.

If you wish to go directly to any of the reasons listed below, please click on it.

1. Poor Communicators Do Not Reveal The Complexity of Their Emotional State; They Reveal Only Part of What is Going On Inside of Them, Hence Their "B" is Not The Same as Their "A"
   
   

2. Communication Breaks Down When "C" is Not The Same as "B" Due to
   1) Inattention, 2) Selective hearing, 3) Misinterpreting, or mind reading on the part of the listener
   
   

3. People Miscommunicate Under The Influence of Anger; Their "B" is Not The Same as Their True "A"
   1. Using the "never" word, 2. Using the "always" word, 3. Making a blanket statement, and 4. Name calling.
   
   

4. It is Poor Communication When The Speaker Knowingly Distorts What He Truly Believes or Feels in His Heart. His "B" is Not The Same as His "A."
   1. To protect partner's feelings or not ruffle feathers, and 2. To paint himself in a better light or defend against blame or attack.
   
   

5. It is Poor Communication When "B" is Not The Same as "A" Even if It is an Honest Mistake.
   
   

6. Whose Fault is It When Misinterpretation Takes Place?
   1. The role of the listener, 2. The role of the speaker
   
   

7. Summary

I. Poor Communicators Do Not Reveal The Complexity of Their Emotional State; They Reveal Only Part of What is Going On Inside of Them, Hence Their "B" is Not The Same as Their "A"

Case History One: Annette, a 32 year old housewife with two young children complained to me that her husband, Jack, a 39 year old successful contractor, always criticized her when she was on the phone. He was especially harsh when he would come home from work and see her on the phone at which time he would invariably yell angrily "Why are you always on the phone?" The words that came out of his mouth were his "B." His words constituted a loud, angry outburst, and clearly a criticism in spite of the fact that they were phrased as a question.

In exploring the matter during counseling, Jack discovered that in addition to his anger he was also experiencing disappointment and hurt. And so, shouting angrily at Annette when he came home did not convey to her all of his thoughts and feelings, his "A." He admitted to me that his unexpressed "A" included such sentiments as, "I missed you, and now that I am home, I would like to spend some time with you, but I can't because you are on the phone," and this is what he should have said. However, those tender thoughts were unconscious. The only conscious thoughts he had were the angry ones. At other times, he was unconsciously thinking and should have said: "When I come home and you ignore me, I feel rejected and unimportant to you, I don't feel that I am your first priority." At still other times, a more accurate expression of his "A" would have been "When I come home and you ignore me by continuing to talk on the phone, it hurts me and angers me because I believe that I should be your first priority rather than the person you are talking to." As noted, Jack came nowhere near expressing all of his true feelings and thoughts on this matter...in fact, he had never gone deeper into his psyche to discover the emotions that lay beneath the veneer of his anger. Jack's "A" and "B" were not only not the same, they were, in fact, miles apart. By not expressing his tender feelings towards Annette, he miscommunicated.

Understandably, no one would have expected Jack to express all of his feelings so elegantly while he was taking off his coat, fuming, and Annette was still on the phone. However, in an ideal situation, later that evening or at a relaxed time over the weekend, if Jack had been more introspective, more attuned to his emotions and a better communicator, he might have sat down with Annette to discuss his anger, explore its underpinnings and reveal the rest of his feelings which included his emotions of rejection and hurt, the real "A." But this did not happen because although Jack was aware of his anger when he came home, he was not attuned to other emotions and the complexity of his emotional state. Since his feelings of rejection and hurt had barely surfaced to his conscious mind—if at all—how could he have possibly expressed them to Annette?

After meeting alone with Jack to explore not only his anger, but also his underlying feelings of being ignored and hurt, I encouraged him to share them with Annette at our next meeting which was going to be a joint session. When Jack revealed his real "A," there was a dramatic change in Annette's attitude towards her husband. His revelation of his softer feelings were in stark contrast to the tough, independent, self-sufficient image he had been presenting to her all along. The fact that he made himself vulnerable to his wife by revealing this side of his personality opened a wonderful channel of communication between them that had never before existed.

Case History Two: In a situation similar to that of Annette and Jack's "homecoming experience," Jeff, a 42 year old regional sales manager, complained that instead of consistently getting a warm greeting from his wife when he came home from work, he would be attacked by his wife, Allison, 45 years old, mother of their children and fulltime homemaker. Both had married later in life and now had three young children at home. In discussing the matter with the couple, Jeff admitted that Allison's outbursts were not the norm. He then sheepishly admitted that they only occurred when he came home later than usual without having called home to advise Allison of his delay. It was only on those occasions that Allison would get mad and either shout "Damn it, you're late again!" or she would just ignore him.

During an individual session with Allison she reported that she took no enjoyment in shouting at her husband or ignoring him. She was always happier when she greeted him with warmth and affection. She explained that her angry outbursts were due to the fact that Jeff did not do enough to help with the children, and that the children did not have enough opportunities to spend time with their father. Often, what she had in mind was (her "A") "The kids are already asleep, it's such a shame that they didn't see their daddy before they went to bed." On other occasions she was thinking "I married you because I love you, but you seem to be married to your job, you don't seem to be eager to come home and this hurts me." And on still other occasions she was thinking "I am disappointed and angry that you are hardly around to assume your responsibilities with the kids, and that you see it as 100% my burden." In addition to the above reasons for her displeasure, she was especially angry on those evenings when he had specifically promised to be home at a certain time, but came home an hour or two later, without even alerting her, thereby messing up her schedule.

Allison was certainly successful in conveying her frustration and anger at Jeff's tardiness. Unfortunately however, her short angry outbursts as well as her cold shoulder later in the evening did very little to convey her other thoughts and feelings on Jeff's late homecomings. In this situation too, Allison's communication, her "B," came nowhere near expressing her true feelings and thoughts, her "A."

During another individual session with Allison, we discussed her unexpressed emotions towards her husband, and I encouraged her to communicate them to him in a loving, rather than angry, fashion. She followed my advice; this approach made a very different impression on Jeff. It inspired him to rethink his priorities and make some adjustments in his schedule which allowed him to spend more time with his family and participate more actively in satisfying the needs of his wife and children.

II. Communication Breaks Down When "C" is Not The Same as "B" Due to Inattention, Selective Hearing, Misinterpreting, or Mind Reading

In some cases the speaker is quite good at saying exactly what is on her mind, but the listener does not get the message that was transmitted. The "C" that he hears, i.e. his interpretation of what was said is quite different from the "B" that she actually said.

This type of communication breakdown could occur for a variety of reasons including:

1. Inattention,

2. Selective hearing, that is, he only hears what he wants to hear, and blocks out the rest,

3. Misinterpreting, or mind reading. In misinterpreting, the speaker may make an innocent statement; in mind reading, the speaker hasn't even said a word. In both cases their partner "hears" a criticism or "senses" an imminent attack and reacts accordingly.

II. 1. Illustrating When "C" is Not The Same as "B" Due to Inattention

There are occasions when the speaker does a great job in translating her thoughts into clear language, "A" = "B," but fails to get her targeted listener's attention. Perhaps she shouted something from another room thinking that he heard, but he was doing something while she was talking and since he did not give her his full attention, he misheard her. In a similar situation the "listener" didn't even know that someone was talking to him and therefore didn't hear anything. In such a case, "C," "what the listener hears" is not the same as "B," "what the speaker said" and the communication fails.

II. 2. Illustrating When "C" is Not The Same as "B" Due to Selective Hearing

In the case of "selective hearing," the man may have heard the part wherein his wife/partner described a problem but he "didn't hear" the part where she asked him to do something about it. Or she may have asked him to do something now, or today, and he only heard what had to be done, but "didn't hear" when she wanted it done. His "C" is not the same as the "B." The "selective hearing" type of miscommunication can range from a communication informing him about something he should know, requesting him to take the children somewhere, do something for one of them, make a phone call, pay a bill, bring something home from a store, consolidate a family plan, be at a certain place at a certain time, or attend to virtually anything.

Sometimes it is the husband who complains about his wife's failure to discharge her responsibilities, and expresses his disappointment that she ignores him no matter how many times he reminds her. At other times it's the wife who complains about her husband's failure to discharge his responsibilities. Conveniently, neither of them "hears" what their spouse tells them.

In a cartoon by Reynolds, a wife gives the following orders to her husband:

"Go to the store; lay down the mulch; wash and wax the car; get the kids at school; rent some videos; and finish the rest of the dishes."

But he hears only the words in caps:

"GO to the store; LAY  DOWN  the mulch; wash AND wax the car; GET the kids at school; rent SOME videos; and finish the REST of the dishes."

II. 3. Illustrating When "C" is Not The Same as "B" Due to Misinterpreting or Mind-Reading

The difference between "misinterpreting" and "mind reading":

In "misinterpreting" a person says something and the other person puts his own meaning into the statement because he assumes that he knows what his partner "really meant."

In "mind reading," a person does not say anything, but the mind reader reacts to his partner based on his assumption that he knows what she is going to say before she says it.

In both misinterpreting and mind-reading, the "listener" usually reacts angrily because he mistakenly reads a criticism or attack in the other person's intent when, in fact, a criticism or attack may have been the farthest thing from the other person's mind.

Case History Three: Lisa, 41, an articulate assistant manager at a bank, complained to me that her husband Fred, 49, an actuary with a responsible position at a large insurance company, didn't share the events of the day or his thoughts and feelings with her. She would have liked him to discuss his day, ask her about her day, give his opinion on people that they both knew, or on matters that they both experienced. Fred was a highly educated man, but rather quiet, and not as articulate or assertive as his wife. When asked about Lisa's complaint, Fred replied that whenever he disagreed with her, "she took it as an attack and it was no pleasure talking to her since sooner or later I am going to disagree and then be confronted with her defensiveness."

For some reason, Lisa, generally a friendly person, could not handle disagreement with her husband without seeing it as a threat. It became clear that Lisa was misinterpreting her husband, i.e., reading into his words something he did not have in his mind, in this case, an attack. What she "heard" was not what he actually said—or intended.

In exploring the matter, it emerged that Fred rarely complimented or praised his wife for her professional—or even domestic—accomplishments, and she had a mild but chronic feeling that he did not appreciate her or respect her opinion. Since Fred was a lot less articulate than Lisa, and talking was not his "thing," his rare positive comments to her were not made with much enthusiasm, and were generally lost in the shuffle of other things about which they may have been conversing at the time. Lisa thirsted for regular conversations and discussions with Fred with full expression of his thoughts and feelings, but rarely got them. On those few occasions, when he did comment, if he differed from her, she felt even more isolated than usual and took it as an attack, or at least that he was distancing himself from her. This reaction discouraged him from engaging in conversation.

I explained to Lisa that she and Fred were in a vicious cycle. Lisa soon realized her contribution to this cycle and that in order to break the cycle, she would have to give up her defensive posture when her husband disagreed with her. I encouraged her to compliment Fred when he expressed his true opinions on a subject, to thank him for his forthrightness, and to express her appreciation for his honest involvement in the discussion. She was to let him know that she enjoyed talking to him and hearing his ideas and opinions even when he did not agree with her. She took my suggestion. Her new approach made him less afraid of her sensitivity, and defensiveness. Although Fred was still apprehensive, he found that Lisa's greater acceptance of his disagreements gradually altered his apprehensive attitude towards her. Accordingly, he began to "open up" to his wife; this resulted in a noticeably increased level of communication in their lives.

I also encouraged Fred to show more appreciation and give more praise to Lisa. This helped build a safety cushion between them. Lisa, gradually became less sensitive to Fred's disagreements, and did not jump to negative conclusions about them. The resulting changes altered the nature of their interactions and Lisa and Fred were both gratified by their increased interactions.

Case History Four: In another case of misinterpretation, a 57 year old wife, Nannette, complained that her husband, Victor, 62, was fearful of her criticism even after 31 years of marriage and three grown children, two of whom were married. She lamented that it was virtually impossible for her to remind Victor to do anything without provoking a fight. For example, if she told him "don't forget to lock the door" he would take it as an accusation that he never locked the door. In this case too, Victor was reading an accusation into Nannette's kindly reminder. His "C" was a misinterpretation of the innocent "B" that she stated.

Unfortunately, with many couples, there is good reason for the "remindee" to be upset. Usually there is a long history of forgetfulness on the "remindee's" part, and the reminders do come with an annoyed voice. In these situations, the sensitized "remindee" sees all reminders as a criticism.

Case History Five: Sometimes, misinterpretation takes place over a single major decision and the consequences last for years.  In one couple that I saw, both members had had a successful career when they first met and married.  Bob, 43, was a computer engineer and very knowledgeable about setting up networks for large corporations. His wife, Frances, now 43, had been an account executive in an advertising agency until she gave birth to her first child at which time she gave up her career to build a family. In later years, every time Frances referred to having given up her career to raise the children, her husband felt uncomfortable and annoyed because he would "hear" her say "you forced me to give up my career." Frances denied having the accusation in mind.

Misinterpretations are quite common between spouses who have a history of being at odds with each other. Over the months and years, they have both suffered a lot because of the numerous attacks and counterattacks that they have experienced with each other. Sadly, an air of hostility and distrust of their partner's intentions now pervades their relationship. Under these circumstances, both are quick to see an attack in just about anything their spouse says. The fact that many of these defensive individuals are also poor listeners makes the situation worse because they don't give their partner a chance to complete what he is saying. This makes it easy for each person to jump to a hasty conclusion, and to attribute negative attitudes to their partner even when none exist.

III. People Miscommunicate Under The Influence of Anger; Their "B" is Not The Same as Their True "A"
1. Using the "never" word, 2. Using the "always" word, 3. Making a blanket statement, and 4. Name calling

"One Word Can Start a War." Author Unknown

1. Using the "never" word: Sometimes, under the influence of an intense emotion, e.g, anger, hurt, disappointment, a person will blurt out an exaggerated description of the problem e.g., "We never go out," when in fact, in a calm moment, the person will admit that they do go out, but not often enough. Or the person might say, "you never kiss me when I come home," "we never have sex," "you never pick up after yourself," "you're never around when I need you," "you never let me finish what I am saying," "you never talk to me," "you never say you love me," "you're never satisfied, no matter what I do," "you're never happy," or a myriad of other "nevers."

When using "never" the speaker does not deliberately say something dishonest, but because of his anger, hurt, disappointment or other painful emotion, he exaggerates his thoughts. Whatever the reason, the listener finds the accusation offensive; this leads him to focus on and dispute the "never" component of the statement because he feels righteously indignant at the unfair accusation. When a person says "never," the listener is apt to ignore any elements of truth in the original statement, and what could have been the beginning of constructive discussion about a problem turns into a heated argument and often turns into a fight.

2. Using the "always" word. Other complaints which use the "always" word are of the same genre. For example: "you always criticize me," "you always nag," "you always shout at the kids," "you're always late," "you're always complaining," "you always think of yourself first," "you always get angry," "you're always on the phone with your mother...your friends...somebody," "you always get emotional," "you're always screaming." The person really believes "often" but says "always." His "B" is not equal to his "A" and this sloppiness of language can easily become a springboard for an unnecessary heated argument or fight.

3. Making a blanket statement. Blanket statements, often made in anger or hurt, are generally untrue and constitute another form of exaggeration, and therefore a miscommunication. For example, even when "always" or "never" is not used, if a wife makes a categorical statement such as "you don't respect my opinion," it is generally an error in communication. In fact, it may be that her husband does respect her opinion in numerous areas of their life. Furthermore, she may be making many decisions without even consulting him, and maybe even more unilateral decisions than he makes. What she really believes is that "in certain situations you don't respect my opinion." Another wife might say, "you don't take my feelings into consideration" when in fact, her husband sometimes does, but sometimes doesn't. If a wife says "I can't depend on you," when, in fact, she knows that she can depend on him in some ways, e.g., supporting the family financially, but not in other areas, e.g., getting the children to bed on time, she is not factually correct. If she doesn't qualify her words, she is not saying what she knows to be true. In all of these cases, the person is making a blanket statement which is exaggerated and, therefore, miscommunicating.

A husband would be incorrect, and miscommunicating, if he says to his wife "you are irresponsible with money," when, deep in his heart, he knows that she is an excellent shopper for the household but has a problem when buying clothing or jewelry for herself. He is similarly off track if he says, "you don't appreciate me," when, in fact he might have believed and correctly stated to her "I know that deep down you appreciate me, but I would like you to express it more often." Or he might believe and correctly say: "Sometimes I question whether you really appreciate everything I do for you and the kids." When a person makes a blanket statement, he is guilty of miscommunicating because he does not say what he actually believes and unfortunately makes things worse by exaggerating.

The Goal is to Say What You Mean, But Say it Diplomatically
Now, if a husband truly believes that his wife doesn't appreciate him, he still shouldn't say: "You don't appreciate me," since he would then be guilty of "mind reading," one of the forbidden nineteen negative interactions. The most he could legitimately say is, "I don't believe that you appreciate me," or, "Based on how you treat me, I don't feel appreciated." And expressing his true feelings on the subject, in this manner, is seen as a positive event since it opens the door for a problem-solving discussion on the matter.

4. Name calling. This behavior takes place when a person is angry. Name calling, or putting down is one of the more hurtful and offensive infractions of the "Nineteen Rules." A man may scream an epithet at his partner; but if asked to reflect on what he said, he will often deny that he believes what he called her. In such a case he is uttering an untruth, and is miscommunicating because he does not truly believe what he said. But even if he had a legitimate complaint, it would be destructive for him to lodge it in an offensive manner, and/or turn it into a personal attack. Unfortunately, once the words are out of his mouth, the damage has been done, and if his partner takes the epithet to heart, and counterattacks with her own choice words, they are deep into a fight, and at this point, they are both wrong since they are both adding fuel to the flame.

IV. Some Communicators Knowingly Distort What They Truly Believe or Feel in Their Heart. Their "B" is Not The Same as Their "A."

1. People Lie to Protect Partner's Feelings or Not Ruffle Feathers

Case History Six: Harvey, 29, a newlywed computer analyst, came to my office with his wife Susan, 33, an accountant, because of marital problems. Harvey was so sensitive to the possibility that Susan's feelings might be hurt if he told her an unflattering truth about herself that he would not give an honest answer even when she asked him if he liked the dress she was wearing. He admitted to his misleading replies, but justified them by saying that he thought she was beautiful no matter what she wore. Susan, however, recognized this reply as a rationalization and saw his evasiveness as a problem which she tried to highlight for Harvey by saying to him in a disappointed voice: "If I wore a yellow polka dot dress and hot pink shoes to a funeral, you wouldn't say anything...I want you to state your honest opinion. I don't want a 'yes-man'." But Harvey's "yes-man" approach permeated their marriage. He did not express disagreement with Susan even on minor issues let alone stand up to her on important issues. Harvey was all-too-aware that he wasn't saying what he meant.

Sadly, Harvey was using the communication process for defensive purposes rather than to convey truth and bring about a better understanding between himself and his wife. Harvey knew, and eventually Susan began to realize, that Harvey's "B" was not always consistent with the "A" that he thought. To her great disappointment and utter frustration, his habit grew to a point where she never knew when to believe him.

In working with this couple, it became clear that Harvey was so insecure in his relationship with Susan that not only did he tell lies concerning inconsequential matters to protect himself, but he was also handicapped in expressing his true thoughts and feelings even on matters that concerned them both for fear that her love of him might diminish. . There were even times when he told her inconsequential lies to "protect himself." Through therapy Harvey learned that by being Susan's "yes-man" he was not only not strengthening their relationship, but in fact weakening it. By failing to express and stand up for his honest opinions, he was losing the respect and interest of his wife. His newly-learned awareness of the seriousness of this growing problem served as a stimulus for him to change. Further, he began to realize that instead of protecting his marriage to Susan, quite the contrary, his small lies were undermining one of the fundamental bases of a relationship: trust.

His embarrassment at appearing untrustworthy and immature, his fear that he would lose the respect of his wife, and the possible threat to his marriage motivated Harvey to work on his problems. However, changing the self perception of low self-esteem that he had endured for many years and ridding himself of his fairly well entrenched habit of "convenience lying" was not easy. To help him achieve these goals, I met with Harvey for a number of individual psychotherapy sessions. Harvey wisely threw himself into this therapeutic endeavor and with encouragement from Susan progressed by small incremental steps. He gradually put his relationship with Susan on a more mature footing.

Case History Seven: Another example of a breakdown of communication, due to the speaker's failure to say what she thinks, a problem that I have seen time and time again, occurred with Marjorie, 29, who one evening wanted to go out for dinner with her live-in boy friend Frank, 31. Partly because of her insecurity with Frank arising from his ambivalence about a commitment to marriage (after four years of living together), Marjorie was afraid to tell Frank her wish to go out for dinner (her "A"). When he walked in that evening, she should have said, "Honey, I feel like eating out, how about us going out tonight?" Instead, she went about it in a roundabout way by asking him "Honey, would you like to go out for dinner tonight?" Her "B" was not equal to her "A" since it gave no indication of her own wishes on the matter.

When Frank gave her an honest "no," Marjorie felt rejected, hurt, angry, and sulked for the rest of the evening. She brought up this incident during counseling as an example of Frank's insensitivity to her feelings. Frank remembered the incident, but had a different slant on the matter. As he reported it, he had come home in a great mood from his construction job, but said "no" in reply to her question because he was tired and wanted to spend a quiet evening at home. We reviewed the events of the evening and I helped him explore the progression of his thoughts and feelings for the next few hours. It emerged that he was baffled by Marjorie's increasing distance and moodiness, and in turn, found himself distancing himself from her as the evening progressed and his own mood worsened.

Marjorie's failure to communicate her wishes in this situation was part of a pattern wherein she would barely hint at her wishes. In another situation, while watching TV with Frank, she asked "Isn't it cold in here?" when she really meant, "Why don't you come over here on the couch and cuddle with me a bit?" Marjorie's round-about approach constituted a breakdown in communication and the relationship suffered accordingly.

In my dual role as marriage counselor/psychologist, I spent individual time working with each member of this couple. I helped Marjorie understand why she was afraid to express her wishes directly and I encouraged her to speak up for what she wanted as the situation required. I explained that, whereas, in some cases a wife might be intimidated by a demanding or dictatorial spouse, and fears to express her wishes directly, this was not the case here. Frank was not intimidating in any way, if fact, he loved her, respected her and was open to her input. The origin of Marjorie's problem with Frank began long before Frank came on the scene. Marjorie had been brought up by a close-minded, angry, alcoholic father whom she feared. I explained that it was natural, but unfortunate that she would bring this learned fear into her adult relationship with Frank. It was part of her hidden agenda. (For further explanation, please see my article titled, "The Hidden Agenda in Relationships.")

After exploring Marjorie's childhood, I explained to her that it had been a wise and adaptive (appropriate) behavior on her part to "walk around on eggshells" in a previous setting (her childhood home) when her father came home drunk because it served the valuable purpose of sparing her from abuse. However, her timid behavior was not adaptive in her present situation with Frank since it was not only not necessary, but worse, it restricted her freedom to express herself normally and interact healthfully with her boyfriend. Accordingly, her miscommunications interrupted the healthy flow of their relationship.

I then trained both of them in the A-B-C's of good communication. My focus with Marjorie was to be open in revealing her wishes and to be more self assertive in asking that they be fulfilled. My focus with Frank was to be more sensitive to Marjorie's early experiences as a child and her consequent "beating around the bush" type of communication. To help her compensate for her fear of self assertion, he was asked to encourage her to express her wishes directly, and say her true thoughts in any given situation. I helped them understand how a breakdown in communication, such as the one that occurred with the hoped-for dinner date and the desire for cuddling—neither of which (unexpressed) wishes was fulfilled—can initiate unintended and totally unnecessary feelings of rejection, hurt, confusion, and an unnecessary distance between them.

In this example with Marjorie, as in the case cited above with Harvey who was also afraid to tell the truth, both of these individuals were aware that they were not saying what they meant. In my work with more than a thousand couples over the past 35 years, I have found that a failure to express one's feelings can happen to either gender, due to a fear of loss of love, fear of starting a fight, or for other reasons. This crippling reticence can go on for years. Not saying what you really mean in any situation that involves your partner is a psychological problem for the "quiet" party, shortchanges the partner, and creates an interpersonal problem for the couple. Keeping silent when something should be said hurts both persons and diminishes the relationship.

For a more elaborate discussion on people's failures to say what is on their mind, click here for my article "Thirteen Reasons Why Spouses Fail to Communicate."

2. People Lie or Withhold Information to Paint Themselves in a Better Light or Defend Themselves Against Blame or Attack.

Lying or Withholding Information as a Form of Miscommunication
In other situations, a person may deliberately withhold information, mislead, or lie, to keep something hidden from his partner. People lie to their partners to paint themselves in a better light, e.g., by boasting about an accomplishment that never happened, or by not mentioning a failure that did happen, or to hide some experience or activity that their partner would have disapproved of had they known about it. Withholding information might involve past or present problems with alcohol, drugs, sex, gambling or other unflattering behaviors; or it may involve an erratic employment history, or large debts to credit cards, or personal loans. At still other times, a person may withhold information about medical or psychological problems in oneself or one's family.

The most serious form of lie involves contact or liaison with a third party. This may include an internet-initiated relationship that begins with "innocent" chat room interchanges, moves into instant messaging and "graduates" to personal emails. Eventually the "sound barrier" is broken and the couple start talking to each other, usually on a cell phone, and sometimes on a newly purchased secret cell phone. In many of these extra-marital relationships, the individuals never meet, but might talk to each other at great length, sometimes quite explicitly about their fantasies, and might call or text message each other numerous times a day. They might exchange pictures, sometimes very personal ones. These liaisons have been variously called "friendships," "harmless flirtations," and "blatant acts of infidelity," depending on who does the calling. However, no matter what the clandestine relationship is called, and no matter what the couple does or doesn't do (something the hurt spouse will often wonder whether he/she will ever really know), the mere fact that a secret relationship exists would evoke many very painful emotions in the hurt party.

At times the hidden relationship involves face-to-face involvement with clandestine meetings taking place when the offending spouse is supposed to be working late, out with some friends, or out of town on a business conference. Very often these extra-marital relationships occur with a coworker, an "ex" who has reappeared on the scene, or with the spouse's best "friend." Too many sad examples come to mind.