Y11W26WR The four horsemen

Observational
The writing prompt

Observe three conversations over a week (your own or others’) and identify which of the four horsemen appear, with specific examples of what they looked like in practice.

1Retrieval check

Q1.What are Gottman’s four horsemen of divorce?

  • AAnger, sadness, fear, disgust
  • BCriticism, contempt, defensiveness, stonewalling
  • CSilence, shouting, crying, leaving
  • DMoney, sex, parenting, in-laws

Q2.Which of the four horsemen is the strongest predictor of divorce?

  • ACriticism
  • BContempt
  • CDefensiveness
  • DStonewalling
Show answer key

Q1 → B. Criticism, contempt, defensiveness, stonewalling.These are communication patterns — addressable behaviours, not personality traits, which is why Gottman’s work is useful.

Q2 → B. Contempt.Contempt correlates with immune system suppression in both partners — it’s the hardest to disguise and the most corrosive.

2Prompt deconstruction

Command verb
OBSERVE — train your ear, don’t diagnose from afar
You pick
three conversations across your life (in, witnessed, media)
Goal
distinguish patterns precisely: contempt ≠ anger, criticism ≠ complaint
Must reference
the four horsemen AND the article’s note that Gottman’s predictive numbers have been contested

3Pick nudge

Which relationship example will let you examine the horsemen most honestly?

In
A conversation you were in
Witnessed
One you overheard or observed
Media
A show, podcast, film scene

4Planner — for each of your picks

Conversation
Which horseman(men) appeared (specific language/behaviour)
#1
#2
#3

5Sentence stems

  • I noticed that ___ when ___.
  • The specific moment it stood out was ___.
  • Before paying attention, I had been assuming ___.
  • [Researcher’s] finding that ___ captures what I saw, because ___.
  • The pattern across my cases is ___.
  • What this tells me about [wider topic] is ___.

6Exemplar paragraph (not about this article)

(1) Three conversations: (1-a) My parents arguing about dishes on Sunday — I initially heard criticism but on re-listening it was closer to contempt (eye-roll, ‘you always do this’). (2) The distinction matters because contempt corrodes differently. (3) (1-b) A TV scene where a character ‘shuts down’ — clear stonewalling, but dressed up as calm. (4) Watching for the horsemen changed what I saw. (5) (1-c) My own reply to a friend’s Monday text: I read it back and caught myself being defensive (‘that’s not what I meant — you’re the one who…’), deflecting rather than acknowledging. The pattern: contempt and defensiveness are the easiest to miss in yourself, because they feel justified. Gottman’s point holds, with the article’s caveat about exact predictive figures in mind.

What this paragraph does, move by move

  1. Names the first case and identifies contempt precisely.
  2. Explains why that distinction matters.
  3. Adds a second case of stonewalling.
  4. Shows how watching for the horsemen changed the reading.
  5. Applies the pattern to the writer’s own defensiveness and lands the caveat.