Understanding the Dynamics of Abusive Relationships

mada85

mada85

The Cosmic Force
I came across the following article at _http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/enlightened-living/200807/understanding-the-dynamics-abusive-relationships

I thought it was pretty interesting in terms of understanding the internal dynamics of an abusive relationship. These dynamics may not be readily apparent to an outside observer. The abuser may go to great lengths to maintain a façade of normality when around other people. In other cases, of course, such behaviours may be more readily apparent to an outside observer.

Understanding the Dynamics of Abusive Relationships
Kiss me, kill me, kiss me, again - the dynamics of abusive relationships
Published on July 14, 2008 by Michael J. Formica, MS, MA, EdM in Enlightened Living

Abusive relationships are fairly simple. They are driven by insecurity, fear that feeds that insecurity and an expectation of inconsistency, both real and perceived.

An abuser is morbidly insecure. S/he (yes, potentially, she) has little sense of his/her own social value and makes an effort to gain or re-gain some semblance of that value through domination and control. The fear that feeds that insecurity has two fronts: fear of not being lovable, and fear of appearing weak. The paradox here is that the abuser is, in fact, weak, which is why s/he abuses -- to maintain a sense of control -- in the first place. The perceived inconsistency on the part of the abuser by the victim is that the victim is not submitting to the abuser's domination.

The victim is also morbidly insecure and for surprisingly similar reasons. S/he also has little sense of his/her own social value, but makes an effort to establish that value by losing him/herself to the demand for submission. The fear that feeds this insecurity is also about not being lovable or loved, and there is a willingness to accept the inconsistency of the abuser's attention for the sake of being loved.

The pathological need to control on the part of the abuser and the pathological need for attention on the part of the victim is a match made in heaven. We are all just a bunch of neurotic habits that tend to find a fit with our opposite to create a psychosocial balance. Abusive relationships are one of the most extreme cases of this dynamic.

So, what do abusive relationships look like? Well, it's not always about being slapped around. Abusive relationships come in all forms along with physical abuse - social abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse (we are not referring here to molestation), financial abuse, etc. Abuse is about a dynamic of extremes, domination and submission. It is about giving and withholding, also in the extreme.

Let's look at social abuse. Have you ever had a boss who praises you one minute, and makes you wonder if you'll have a job tomorrow the next? Or let's you work yourself to the bone on a project, only to take credit or give the credit to someone else? That's an abusive dynamic. Your boss has a need to control you because s/he is threatened by you, or has a sense of insecurity about his/her own ability to motivate or lead. And you have a need for a job -- a metaphor for being loved - so you put up with it; you submit.

The abuser is also driven by a more subtle and primitive sense of fear. Because s/he is often limited in his/her social perspective, and sees things only from an egocentric perspective (i.e., has not developed a sense of ethnocentric compassion), s/he will lash out when s/he sees no other options.

The victim, on the other hand, tends to be an emotional anorexic. Starving themselves, or allowing him/herself to be starved and then gorging themselves on whatever comes his/her way only to feel guilty about it later because of a sense of not deserving what s/he has received; a state of mind that drives his/her neediness - needing, not having...having, not wanting...needing, again.

Sometimes for the victim there is also a sense of familiarity and comfort in an abusive relationship, which is why victims will often return to an abusive relationship or, leaving one, will unconsciously seek out another.

Think about growing up. Was there something that your family did that was unusual (sitting around at night, singing together or working in a community garden) that you just assumed everyone did, and you were later surprised to find that you were mistaken? It's the same thing - if you are socialized to equate love with pain or withholding, then you will seek out love in that form.

My favorite example of this is the silverware drawer. Think about where the silverware drawer was in the house in which you grew up. Now, think about where it is in your house. Allowing for architectural differences, I suspect about 90% of you will find that it's in the same place is was when you grew up. It's a memory map...why fix it, if it's not broken?

But what if you don't, or can't, recognize that it's broken? That's where we get ourselves into trouble and how we come to repeat social and relational patterns.

Abusive relationships are tricky and, just as a fish doesn't know that he's wet, we often don't see the subtle markers for abuse in a relationship because we are in it. Further, relationships fill our needs and, when our needs are being met, we don't necessarily have an imperative to take a look at how they are being met.

Here's the thing. It all comes back to us, to our responsibility and accountability. But, in this case, it comes back to responsibility to ourselves and accountability to ourselves. Instead of just riding the wave, if we choose to mindfully examine the nature of our relationships and make a determination of what is acceptable and not acceptable to us, of what feeds us, rather than bleeds us, then we are living, and loving, authentically and with mindful awareness.

© 2008 Michael J. Formica, All Rights Reserved
Click to expand...
 
Thank you for sharing this Endymion. I thought it was right on the money. In a broader sense, I took this in the context that we ourselves may have played part in these scenarios at one point in our life or may have witnessed this scenario in family, friends, co-workers, bosses, or acquaintances. The greater emphasis however, stuck me that the perpetrator in this instance may not always be a psychopath, but rather emotionally impaired because of their lack of self-esteem, or self worth that creates the intense insecurity in the individual. And I appreciated the article's point of the victims role in the scenario, this is sometimes overlooked.

I would image that a lot of self work and professional therapy could help one heal the insecurity problem. If that person is willing to correct the problem, or recognize the problem to begin with.

Other than a long term analysis, and ticking the boxes of traits, how could one differentiate between this type of insecurity problem, and/or automatically assuming they are a psychopath?
 
Jasmine said:
Other than a long term analysis, and ticking the boxes of traits, how could one differentiate between this type of insecurity problem, and/or automatically assuming they are a psychopath?
Click to expand...

I think it is more "by their fruits you shall know them". Sooner or later, the behavior has to be addressed regardless of the root of the problem. Better sooner! A wounded person with a strong sense of responsibility would stand a good chance for recovery. Like Martha Stout says in Myth of Sanity:
"But here is what might bring someone like Matthew to the changes he needs to make, though he will never be motivated by unbearable anguish: let us say that Matthew's character structure happens to include an abiding sense of personal responsibility for his own behavior, especially for the impact of that behavior on other people."
Click to expand...

I have read Michael J. Formica's articles on Psychology Today. They are very interesting, but I think it can be dangerous not to make a clear distinction like Sandra Brown does in Women Who Loved Psychopaths. Might actually pull quite a few people to stay in a no win relationship because "the poor guy is so afraid" so to speak!
 
Psyche said:
I have read Michael J. Formica's articles on Psychology Today. They are very interesting, but I think it can be dangerous not to make a clear distinction like Sandra Brown does in Women Who Loved Psychopaths. Might actually pull quite a few people to stay in a no win relationship because "the poor guy is so afraid" so to speak!
Click to expand...

This is a really good point, Psyche. The distinction between those pathological individuals who simply cannot be fixed and those who are abusing because of emotional trauma is rather conspicuous by its absence. George Simon is better in this regard, and Sandra Brown's book is essential reading.
 
Psyche said:
Jasmine said:
Other than a long term analysis, and ticking the boxes of traits, how could one differentiate between this type of insecurity problem, and/or automatically assuming they are a psychopath?
Click to expand...

I think it is more "by their fruits you shall know them". Sooner or later, the behavior has to be addressed regardless of the root of the problem. Better sooner! A wounded person with a strong sense of responsibility would stand a good chance for recovery. Like Martha Stout says in Myth of Sanity:
"But here is what might bring someone like Matthew to the changes he needs to make, though he will never be motivated by unbearable anguish: let us say that Matthew's character structure happens to include an abiding sense of personal responsibility for his own behavior, especially for the impact of that behavior on other people."
Click to expand...

I have read Michael J. Formica's articles on Psychology Today. They are very interesting, but I think it can be dangerous not to make a clear distinction like Sandra Brown does in Women Who Loved Psychopaths. Might actually pull quite a few people to stay in a no win relationship because "the poor guy is so afraid" so to speak!
Click to expand...
Thank you Psyche, "by their fruits you shall know them", this is so true. It just perplexes me that what is described in Formica's article could easily be mistaken for psychopathic behavior. But maybe I'm reading too much into it. He so accurately describes the behavior of a very insecure person, yet this same type of behavior, especially the manipulation or cruelty he described coming from a boss, or a spouse, could easily lead one to think they were dealing with a psychopath.

The quote by Martha Stout was interesting because, it emphasizes the need for the individual to have something in them that's willing to acknowledge their behavior and change. A psychopath would never seriously consider taking responsibility for their own behavior for the good of others, they don't care to change, or care about their negative effect on other people.

Endymion said:
This is a really good point, Psyche. The distinction between those pathological individuals who simply cannot be fixed and those who are abusing because of emotional trauma is rather conspicuous by its absence. George Simon is better in this regard, and Sandra Brown's book is essential reading.
Click to expand...

Thanks Endymion, this was the question I had in mind, but you worded it perfectly. I was just hoping we could have a discussion on how to make these distinctions more clearly, and specifically in this case when a persons insecurity drives them to the these extreme behaviors.
 
Endymion said:
Psyche said:
I have read Michael J. Formica's articles on Psychology Today. They are very interesting, but I think it can be dangerous not to make a clear distinction like Sandra Brown does in Women Who Loved Psychopaths. Might actually pull quite a few people to stay in a no win relationship because "the poor guy is so afraid" so to speak!
Click to expand...

This is a really good point, Psyche. The distinction between those pathological individuals who simply cannot be fixed and those who are abusing because of emotional trauma is rather conspicuous by its absence. George Simon is better in this regard, and Sandra Brown's book is essential reading.
Click to expand...

Simon also deals with a third group: People of pathological character who can be fixed. This, I think, is important to keep in mind - apart from psychopaths and other types that cannot change, there are also disturbed characters that can. But not by addressing trauma - because in these cases, trauma is not the problem. Rather, as he discusses, what they need is correction - addressing their sense of entitlement, their avoidance of responsibility, and their manipulation tactics and other unacceptable behavior.

Jasmine said:
I was just hoping we could have a discussion on how to make these distinctions more clearly, and specifically in this case when a persons insecurity drives them to the these extreme behaviors.
Click to expand...

The excerpted information in the thread on George Simon's book Character Disturbance may be a good starting point. It may help in recognizing the signs of character disturbance, and so in separating such issues from those caused by neuroticism.
 
Psalehesost said:
Endymion said:
Psyche said:
I have read Michael J. Formica's articles on Psychology Today. They are very interesting, but I think it can be dangerous not to make a clear distinction like Sandra Brown does in Women Who Loved Psychopaths. Might actually pull quite a few people to stay in a no win relationship because "the poor guy is so afraid" so to speak!
Click to expand...

This is a really good point, Psyche. The distinction between those pathological individuals who simply cannot be fixed and those who are abusing because of emotional trauma is rather conspicuous by its absence. George Simon is better in this regard, and Sandra Brown's book is essential reading.
Click to expand...

Simon also deals with a third group: People of pathological character who can be fixed. This, I think, is important to keep in mind - apart from psychopaths and other types that cannot change, there are also disturbed characters that can. But not by addressing trauma - because in these cases, trauma is not the problem. Rather, as he discusses, what they need is correction - addressing their sense of entitlement, their avoidance of responsibility, and their manipulation tactics and other unacceptable behavior.

Jasmine said:
I was just hoping we could have a discussion on how to make these distinctions more clearly, and specifically in this case when a persons insecurity drives them to the these extreme behaviors.
Click to expand...

The excerpted information in the thread on George Simon's book Character Disturbance may be a good starting point. It may help in recognizing the signs of character disturbance, and so in separating such issues from those caused by neuroticism.
Click to expand...
Terrific, thank you Psalehesost! I'm eager to dive into that thread for further reading on this subject. :)
 
Understanding the Dynamics of Abusive Relationships
Kiss me, kill me, kiss me, again - the dynamics of abusive relationships
Published on July 14, 2008 by Michael J. Formica, MS, MA, EdM in Enlightened Living

Abusive relationships are fairly simple. They are driven by insecurity, fear that feeds that insecurity and an expectation of inconsistency, both real and perceived.
Click to expand...

These first two sentences can be described as misinformed at best; deliberately deceptive at worst.

Abusive relationships are neither simple nor are they always based on fear or insecurity.

An abuser is morbidly insecure. S/he (yes, potentially, she) has little sense of his/her own social value and makes an effort to gain or re-gain some semblance of that value through domination and control.
Click to expand...

Nope. Many abusers are not suffering from any sense of inferiority. Many abusers exhibit a great desire in having the dominant position in a relationship. This is due to power drive. Diagnosing the drive for dominance and power as being caused by a sense of inferiority can at best be said to arise from a faulty "natural world view" in Lobaczewki's terms (discussed here ) characterized by projection.

The fear that feeds that insecurity has two fronts: fear of not being lovable, and fear of appearing weak. The paradox here is that the abuser is, in fact, weak, which is why s/he abuses -- to maintain a sense of control -- in the first place. The perceived inconsistency on the part of the abuser by the victim is that the victim is not submitting to the abuser's domination.
Click to expand...

In many cases, the abuser is as weak as a cat when it dominates a mouse. Aggression comes in two varieties - predatory or instrumental and reactive. Predatory or instrumental aggression is deliberate and meant to satisfy a desire for dominance. It is characterized by a lack of anxiety. Reactive aggression is a reaction that is driven by a perceived threatening situation and is characterized by high levels of anxiety.

When confronted with reality after an incident of inappropriate aggression, someone who was using reactive aggression would likely suffer from guilt and shame. One who used instrumental aggression can become embarrassed or make a show of the same at having been called out - but there will be little shame or guilt.

The pathological need to control on the part of the abuser and the pathological need for attention on the part of the victim is a match made in heaven. We are all just a bunch of neurotic habits that tend to find a fit with our opposite to create a psychosocial balance. Abusive relationships are one of the most extreme cases of this dynamic.
Click to expand...

Interesting conception of heaven followed by the biggest lie (in bold) perpetrated by modern psychology on human society. The first step would be to theoretically recognize this lie (that we are all a bunch of neurotics) and then practically learn to recognize the signs of what is not neurotic. There are aggressive and character disordered personalities who neither think the same, act the same or are motivated by the same things as a typical neurotic personality. I am not trying to say that it is a simple matter to recognize these differences. Reading Simon's "In Sheep's Clothing" and "Character Disturbance" would greatly help in providing the foundation in this topic.

In practical terms, it makes sense to start with labeling behavior and actions correctly. That means instead of saying "psychopath", it is better to label actions and behavior as pathological. In case of relationships, it makes sense to confront pathological behavior and stand firm. In such cases, it is important to evaluate the tangible situation and actions rather than theorize about intention of the other person. Whatever may be the intention behind pathological behavior by a boss/friend/spouse/parent/child, the focus should be on the inappropriateness of the behavior and clear and direct steps to address and mitigate the same in future. Following good communication skills (like those outlined in crucial conversations ) is important to give the relationship a fair chance and assuage one's own feelings of guilt about doing wrong or not doing enough. If it is shown through subsequent actions that a mutually acceptable common ground is not reachable in the relationship, then a choice would need to be made, whether it be about new and different boundaries in the relationship or terminating it altogether. While making the choice, it is not necessary to know for sure if the other person is a psychopath or agonizing over such a diagnosis but acknowledge the pathology in the behavior and incompatibility of expectations. OSIT
 
The conviction that an abuser is just wounded and needs to be loved to be fixed is what keeps lots of people (mostly women) in abusive relationships. And pathological individuals will use this "super empathy" as Sandra Brown calls it, to maintain control over their target. As Martha Stout pointed out the "poor pitiful me" routine is one of the favored control tools of the psychopath. They achieve "duping delight" playing it and pulling one over on the abusee. And the truth is, it works pretty well because there is nothing harder for an empathic person to do than to say "no" to someone who is deliberately evoking their pity.
 
obyvatel said:
Interesting conception of heaven followed by the biggest lie (in bold) perpetrated by modern psychology on human society. The first step would be to theoretically recognize this lie (that we are all a bunch of neurotics) and then practically learn to recognize the signs of what is not neurotic. There are aggressive and character disordered personalities who neither think the same, act the same or are motivated by the same things as a typical neurotic personality. I am not trying to say that it is a simple matter to recognize these differences. Reading Simon's "In Sheep's Clothing" and "Character Disturbance" would greatly help in providing the foundation in this topic.

In practical terms, it makes sense to start with labeling behavior and actions correctly. That means instead of saying "psychopath", it is better to label actions and behavior as pathological. In case of relationships, it makes sense to confront pathological behavior and stand firm. In such cases, it is important to evaluate the tangible situation and actions rather than theorize about intention of the other person. Whatever may be the intention behind pathological behavior by a boss/friend/spouse/parent/child, the focus should be on the inappropriateness of the behavior and clear and direct steps to address and mitigate the same in future. Following good communication skills (like those outlined in crucial conversations ) is important to give the relationship a fair chance and assuage one's own feelings of guilt about doing wrong or not doing enough. If it is shown through subsequent actions that a mutually acceptable common ground is not reachable in the relationship, then a choice would need to be made, whether it be about new and different boundaries in the relationship or terminating it altogether. While making the choice, it is not necessary to know for sure if the other person is a psychopath or agonizing over such a diagnosis but acknowledge the pathology in the behavior and incompatibility of expectations. OSIT
Click to expand...

I agree, and thank you for breaking-down that article. What an eye-opener, you really shed some light on this subject for me. I intend to get those books as soon as possible. And I appreciated those 2 links.

It's a very important point you made regarding correctly labeling & evaluating the specific behavior patterns, situation, and actions of the "pathological behavior" of a person. The emphasis is then on studding the crucial details and how well we can detect the pathological behaviors. If we can detect prominent pathological behavior in a person, it should be enough of a red flag for warning bells to go off, and the next step would be to re-evaluate the relationship and take the appropriate action. And your examples were great.

Laura said:
The conviction that an abuser is just wounded and needs to be loved to be fixed is what keeps lots of people (mostly women) in abusive relationships. And pathological individuals will use this "super empathy" as Sandra Brown calls it, to maintain control over their target. As Martha Stout pointed out the "poor pitiful me" routine is one of the favored control tools of the psychopath. They achieve "duping delight" playing it and pulling one over on the abusee. And the truth is, it works pretty well because there is nothing harder for an empathic person to do than to say "no" to someone who is deliberately evoking their pity.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree!
 
[quote author=Michael J. Formica]
{snip}
Instead of just riding the wave, if we choose to mindfully examine the nature of our relationships and make a determination of what is acceptable and not acceptable to us, of what feeds us, rather than bleeds us, then we are living, and loving, authentically and with mindful awareness.[/quote]

Here's what comes to my mind...

[quote author=wikipedia]
Negative feedback occurs when the result of a process influences the operation of the process itself in such a way as to reduce changes. Negative feedback tends to make a system self-regulating; it can produce stability and reduce the effect of fluctuations. ...
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback_loop[/quote]

Coercion is a continuum that can be described as consisting of subtle manipulation at one end and fatal or near-fatal force at the extreme end. Use of coercion sets up a negative feedback loop in a relationship between two or more people and within a single person via negative introject.

I don't know whether to be surprised or not that this author puts so much energy into that article, yet leaves the underlying mechanism hidden. I would think that by exposing the mechanism of coercion, a reader would gain an objective metric for comparing other's behavior without having to rely on momentary feelings and feeling-based judgments which can be mistaken.
 
Exactly. How can you "mindfully examine the nature of your relationship" when you are being subtly manipulated not only by the other, but by your own craving for stability?
 
Buddy said:
Coercion is a continuum that can be described as consisting of subtle manipulation at one end and fatal or near-fatal force at the extreme end. Use of coercion sets up a negative feedback loop in a relationship between two or more people and within a single person via negative introject.

I don't know whether to be surprised or not that this author puts so much energy into that article, yet leaves the underlying mechanism hidden. I would think that by exposing the mechanism of coercion, a reader would gain an objective metric for comparing other's behavior without having to rely on momentary feelings and feeling-based judgments which can be mistaken.
Click to expand...

Laura said:
Exactly. How can you "mindfully examine the nature of your relationship" when you are being subtly manipulated not only by the other, but by your own craving for stability?
Click to expand...

In other words, unless a person has the knowledge and understanding of the mechanism of coercion and the resulting feedback loop that keeps them spellbound to the perpetrators manipulation, they are pretty much in the dark and helpless in making rational decisions for change that would benefit them?

Is it possible that the victims need for stability, overcomes their sense of logic? I can't get passed the idea that a victim won't admit to themselves at some level of their consciousness that they are being manipulated. But is it true that they would not detect the manipulation (at all) if they indeed have no understanding of the mechanisms behind pathological behavior? Won't they sense after a period of time that "something" is wrong?

It seems like somewhere along the line in the course of the relationship, clues would present themselves, and thus lead the victim to reflect or question the dynamics of the relationship. Thus in some way, by research on Internet, talking with family or friends, etc., gain some understanding of the unhealthy dynamics presented.
 
Jasmine said:
In other words, unless a person has the knowledge and understanding of the mechanism of coercion and the resulting feedback loop that keeps them spellbound to the perpetrators manipulation, they are pretty much in the dark and helpless in making rational decisions for change that would benefit them?
Click to expand...

Depends on the person I suspect, but the knowledge and understanding of the mechanism can only help. The coercion continuum is also known as the force continuum, and many people from physicists to police officers are aware of it as it applies in their domains so it's existence is not contestable. That's a good thing.

Jasmine said:
Is it possible that the victims need for stability, overcomes their sense of logic?
Click to expand...

Sure it's possible. One can also say the need for stability can become a driver for the logic.


Jasmine said:
I can't get passed the idea that a victim won't admit to themselves at some level of their consciousness that they are being manipulated.
Click to expand...

It's the definition of denial. Seems to me everyone understands how that works. Few people will admit that they are the one in denial though. It's also common in sociology studies that look at how people handle cognitive dissonance. Also, Gurdjieff would point to "buffers" that keep us unaware of painful information.


Jasmine said:
But is it true that they would not detect the manipulation (at all) if they indeed have no understanding of the mechanisms behind pathological behavior? Won't they sense after a period of time that "something" is wrong?
Click to expand...

From childhood, all of us know when we are being coerced. You can't un-know what it feels like except through buffering and denial, OSIT. And dependent children live in a double-bind situation, so there is little choice but to force yourself to overlook, reinterpret or otherwise somehow live in such a situation and eventually normalize it. It may be hard to figure out exactly how it works but one can know very well that it does.

Jasmine said:
It seems like somewhere along the line in the course of the relationship, clues would present themselves, and thus lead the victim to reflect or question the dynamics of the relationship. Thus in some way, by research on Internet, talking with family or friends, etc., gain some understanding of the unhealthy dynamics presented.
Click to expand...

I would say that clues are always present. If nothing else there's the difference between a person's words and their body language (body language does not lie).

Questioning the dynamics like you mention, sounds like what someone might do before they become emotionally invested in a relationship. For those who are needy, who never learned the underlying dynamics and let themselves fall in lust, chemical heat or whatever...well, it's like they never had a chance. They're already hooked and many won't want to hear anything bad about their "love" since it would reflect very poorly on their judgment.

This doesn't cover everything, of course, but it's what I can think of ATM.
 
Thing is, nearly ALL women who are in an abusive relationship make excuses for certain behaviors, mislabeling them as love, covering up, shoving things under the rug, pretending etc etc etc. It can be very frustrating when outside observers SEE the signs here and there of an abusive relationship, whether that abuse is psychological or physical or both.

For example, an abuser may say to his partner "oh, why don't you just shut up and do something for a change instead of whining all the time?" The woman will interpret this in a critically correcting way as "he loves me so much, he's always encouraging me to get out there and do things on my own..."

To just about anybody with two firing neurons, a man who tells his partner to "shut up" is treating her with contempt no matter how he excuses it or how she explains it to herself.

It seems that there are some ways of testing the real gut responses that are drowned out by the conscious mind's narratives. See:

http://www.sott.net/article/269352-Follow-your-gut-down-the-aisle-new-study-says

Also, there is the work of John Gottman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gottman

...Professor emeritus in psychology known for his work on marital stability and relationship analysis through scientific direct observations...

Gottman found that the four negative behaviors that most predict divorce are criticism of partners’ personality, contempt (from a position of superiority), defensiveness, and stonewalling, or emotional withdrawal from interaction.
Click to expand...

There is some criticism of his questioning process and it seems to me to be valid. Obviously, a woman under the sway of an abuser would give a glowing report of her abusive spouse because that is simply what she does all the time in her own mind. The abuser, too, would likely prevaricate on his answers because he KNOWS he is an abuser.

So it seems that the best way to get this kind of info is NOT to ask the marital partners, but rather to collect observations from observers with little emotional investment in the couple.

The thing is, would that actually predict whether or not a marriage would last? Probably not. Women in abusive relationships can stay until they die because they are so good at lying to themselves.

I've attached one of Gottman's papers below.
 

Attachments

You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom