A Self-Assessment and Tool for People Who Serve as Caregivers for People with Dementia

Being a person who gives or coordinates care for a person with the set of symptoms termed “dementia” is a rare occurrence.

Currently, approximately 88% of the U.S. population aged 65 and older and 93-95% of the world’s population aged 60 and older have not developed symptoms of dementia. While the number of people with dementia is expected to increase through 2050, percentages are not.

Being a person who cares for a person with dementia is also a nearly singular experience, having some common and also unparalleled elements with other caregiver roles.

Rather than a diagnosis, “dementia” is the term for a set of symptoms resulting from brain-damaging diseases such as Alzheimer’s and others. This damage to the brain results in reduction of memory, ability to recall and form words, ability to use logic and reason, ability to learn new information, and other reductions in abilities.

As brain-damaging diseases begin to cause the set of symptoms termed “dementia,” brain networks reroute to bypass the damage. As the damaged portions accumulate, brain networks can no longer bypass the extensive areas of damage. Mental and physical functionality declines. Intermittently, functionality may return due to unknown re-routings or temporary reconnections. The causal disease is difficult to determine and usually requires an autopsy to accurately diagnose.

Dementia, resulting from one or more illnesses, is progressive and irreversible. There is no effective treatment or cure.

In caring for a terminally ill person without cognitive impairments, a caregiver witnesses the declining health of the person for whom they are caring. A caregiver for a person with a degenerative cognitive impairment, such as dementia, witnesses erasure of personhood, as well as declining health.

The human brain has evolved to work effectively with the reality of its environment. Most people, most of the time, behave within a predictable range. When the very essence of what makes a person human deteriorates before a caregiver’s eyes, and the person continues to live but speaks and acts in ways that seem inhuman, the experience for the caregiver can seem other-worldly, even horrific.

As a result of challenges to their reality created by this illness, caregivers can experience a devastating loss of connection with the self and the self’s inner resources: losses in self-awareness, self-empathy, self-compassion, self-efficacy, invention and creativity, and inner wisdom.

On an on-going basis, witnessing the person’s suffering, their abnormal words and actions, paired with experiencing the loss of connection with self, and connection with the person even though they sit or stand in front of them, can seem surreal, disorienting, harrowing, traumatic, and painful to the point of being torturous, calling into question the caregiver’s own reality, even the very meaning and purpose of existence. The caregiver’s suffering can be acute.

I have created “A Self-Assessment and Tool for People Who Serve as Caregivers for People with Dementia.” The 8-page .pdf elaborates upon the content of this post and includes the self-assessment and tool. The document contains approximately 2,500 words.

The self-assessment and tool attempt to synthesize research findings on the experience of people who serve as caregivers for people with dementia, research on effective treatment for trauma, and research-backed elements of therapies derived from cognitive theory and other therapies, to ease the particular suffering of the person who serves as a caregiver for a person with dementia.

Of possible additional assistance

With questions or comments, please contact me.

A Self-Assessment and Tool for People Who Serve as Caregivers for People with Dementia

Personal essay: What I Wish I Had Been Told About Dementia, 12/27/21

. . . . .

Selection of sources consulted (listed with inconsistent citation format):

Albinsson L, Strang P. Existential concerns of families of late-stage dementia patients: questions of freedom, choices, isolation, death, and meaning. J Palliat Med. 2003 Apr;6(2):225-35. doi: 10.1089/109662103764978470. PMID: 12854939.

Applebaum AJ, Kryza-Lacombe M, Buthorn J, DeRosa A, Corner G, Diamond EL. Existential distress among caregivers of patients with brain tumors: a review of the literature. Neurooncol Pract. 2016 Dec;3(4):232-244. doi: 10.1093/nop/npv060. Epub 2015 Dec 8. PMID: 31385976; PMCID: PMC6657396.

Day J, Higgins I. Existential Absence: The Lived Experience of Family Members During Their Older Loved One’s Delirium. Qual Health Res. 2015 Dec;25(12):1700-18. doi: 10.1177/1049732314568321. Epub 2015 Jan 20. PMID: 25605755.

Freter, Björn. On the Existential Situation of a Person with Dementia: The Drama of Mankind is repeated in the Drama of Dementia
October 2015 Journal of Health Science 3(5):205-216
DOI:10.17265/2328-7136/2015.05.002

Galfin JM, Watkins ER, Harlow T. A brief guided self-help intervention for psychological distress in palliative care patients: a randomised controlled trial. Palliat Med. 2012 Apr;26(3):197-205. doi: 10.1177/0269216311414757. Epub 2011 Aug 1. PMID: 21807750.

Kühnel MB, Marchioro L, Deffner V, Bausewein C, Seidl H, Siebert S, Fegg M. How short is too short? A randomised controlled trial evaluating short-term existential behavioural therapy for informal caregivers of palliative patients. Palliat Med. 2020 Jun;34(6):806-816. doi: 10.1177/0269216320911595. Epub 2020 Apr 29. PMID: 32348699; PMCID: PMC7243077.

Schulz R, McGinnis KA, Zhang S, Martire LM, Hebert RS, Beach SR, Zdaniuk B, Czaja SJ, Belle SH. Dementia patient suffering and caregiver depression. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2008 Apr-Jun;22(2):170-6. doi: 10.1097/WAD.0b013e31816653cc. PMID: 18525290; PMCID: PMC2782456.

Selman LE, Brighton LJ, Sinclair S, Karvinen I, Egan R, Speck P, Powell RA, Deskur-Smielecka E, Glajchen M, Adler S, Puchalski C, Hunter J, Gikaara N, Hope J; InSpirit Collaborative. Patients’ and caregivers’ needs, experiences, preferences and research priorities in spiritual care: A focus group study across nine countries. Palliat Med. 2018 Jan;32(1):216-230. doi: 10.1177/0269216317734954. Epub 2017 Oct 12. PMID: 29020846; PMCID: PMC5758929.

Sellars M, Chung O, Nolte L, Tong A, Pond D, Fetherstonhaugh D, McInerney F, Sinclair C, Detering KM. Perspectives of people with dementia and carers on advance care planning and end-of-life care: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Palliat Med. 2019 Mar;33(3):274-290. doi: 10.1177/0269216318809571. Epub 2018 Nov 8. PMID: 30404576; PMCID: PMC6376607.

Last updated 1/13/22 with link to Estimation of the global prevalence of dementia in 2019 and forecasted prevalence in 2050: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, 1/6/22 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00249-8

Wander van der Vaart and Rosanna van Oudenaarden. The practice of dealing with existential questions in long-term elderly care. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Health and Well-Being, 2018.

This content is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical or professional advice. Consult a qualified health care professional for personalized medical and professional advice.

Contributing to the Collective Story of the 100 Billion

Inadvertently, simply from being a member of the species Homo sapiens, I will contribute to the story of the 100 billion humans estimated to have ever lived on the planet Earth. My life’s story, only 1/100 billionth of the whole, however small, will be part of this corpus. Although my part is very small, I feel a great responsibility to contribute usefully and humanely. When my time is up, what do I hope to be able to say is true? To our collective story, in the time I have on this planet, what might I contribute?

100 billion people in human history

 

The question, “What might I contribute?”, synthesizes elements from the ultimate existential concerns identified by many thinkers about the nature of being human. My existential thinking has been influenced most recently by Irvin Yalom, M.D. and Marilyn Yalom, Ph.D. Stated simply as continua, these themes are: life vs. death, freedom vs. dependence, connection vs. isolation, and meaning vs. meaninglessness.

Asking, “What might I contribute?” requires courage. It requires the fortitude to consciously become aware of several troubling realities.

First, the question requires approaching the reality that a human life is finite; it has a beginning and an end. We will have the time we have and no more.

Second, it requires approaching the reality that we may be able to influence what happens, but rarely can we insist on outcomes. Even the collective brains of the current 8 billion people on the planet – each with an estimated 100 billion neurons and an equal number of glial cells – cannot comprehend the complexity of reality. Using logic, reason, and data, we can calculate probabilities, not name certainties.

Some might protest, “There are eight billion people now?! And one hundred billion people ever?! My life is too small! How could I possibly contribute or make a difference?!”

When I lived in Tampa, Florida, while also a middle school teacher at a college preparatory school, I was a part-time reporter for what was then The St. Petersburg Times. I was assigned a story about a young girl who wrote and hand-illustrated books for her little sister.

Awed and enchanted by the young girl, I referred her to our school. Intellectually and artistically extraordinary, she was accepted, and became one of my own English students. One of her electives was theater arts and I attended a play in which she was performing.

On the stage, the young girl had been transformed into an elderly woman, her dark hair pomaded white. She wore a Sunday-best dress, a white cardigan over her shoulders, and sturdy, low heels. As she rocked in a rocking chair, she spoke wisdom from her long life.

I wept. I wept with gratitude for the playwright, for the drama teacher who selected the play to perform, for my student for playing this part, for her bravery and forbearance as a person and as a character, and for myself, an unwittingly childless woman who would have no legacy of her own, witnessing the possible future of humanity in such noble hands.

A synthesis of the guidance offered by philosophers, theorists, and researchers in science, psychology, and education suggest asking the following questions may offer a systematic framework for answering, “In the time I have, how might I contribute?“

  1. What are my strengths?
  2. What are my interests?
  3. What are my values?
  4. What are my priorities?
  5. Based on my strengths, interests, values, and priorities, what possibilities exist for my contributions?
  6. Which of these possibilities are based in humanity, logic, reason, and fact? Let me remove possibilities that are zealous or unverifiable.
  7. Of the remaining possibilities on the list, how would I rank order them based on probabilities? In other words, although I might wish otherwise, through which of these am I most likely to be able to contribute?
  8. Among these probabilities, which shall I choose as my primary ends in mind? Let me define them precisely.
  9. What are the constraints upon my intentions? One constraint during this pandemic is unpredictability. How can I optimize within these constraints?
  10. How will I know when I have reached my ends in mind? By what criteria will I evaluate progress towards these ends?
  11. Now that I have asked these questions and defined these terms carefully, what plans shall I make and what strategies will I use?
  12. How will I accommodate and monitor a primary constraint on human endeavors, i.e. my need for self-care? and to attend to my needs, wants, and aspirations?
  13. How will I accommodate these opposites both being true: “I want to give my all to taking care of myself and the beings close to me” AND “I want to give my all to contributing to the greater good”?

Above all, am I as kind to myself as possible? Regardless of what happens in my story – or in the story of the 100 billion – regardless of how short or long my time on the planet may be, am I helping myself – in my “one wild and precious life” – have the most kind, humane, and generously-spirited story I can?

This post is dedicated to Robert H. Giles, Jr., my father, whose ethics and existential questioning ground this essay. He contributed.

. . . . .

This post on existential questions is part of a series in the Guide category for people who, in these times of limited contact and resources, are attempting to find ways to help themselves. The post links to related, possibly useful exercises for further thought and exploration.

These guides may be of particular interest:

Views expressed are the author’s own. This content is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical or professional advice. Consult a qualified health care professional for personalized medical and professional advice.

 

Existential Concerns of People Who Care for People with Dementia

Telling people who they are, what they feel and think, or telling them what they have done or perceived isn’t real, right, or doesn’t matter is a form of psychological control and abuse commonly termed “gaslighting.” More extreme methods used to control captives and/or extricate information from them that attack the person’s selfhood and sense of reality – after first creating a bond, attachment, or dependence between captor and captive – are considered aspects of psychological torture.

Bob Giles at 86The person with dementia may involuntarily gaslight the person who serves as the caregiver.

(Using person-first language respects the personhood and individuality of all involved. For the sake of clarity and brevity, hereinafter, the person who offers care may be termed “caregiver” and the person who receives care is termed “person.” I define “caregiver” as a person who self-defines as a caregiver, either as a direct provider of care, a person who coordinates care, or a person who participates in care from a distance. Singular pronouns will be “they/their.”)

The person’s words and actions say, “I don’t know who you are, your every effort to communicate and connect with me is futile, and you can do nothing helpful for me. I reject your attempts to keep my behavior socially normative. You, your best efforts, your needs and wants, your mind, your heart – they have no power and are irrelevant to me. Our shared history is irrelevant to me. You, and who we are to each other, are now erased. You might as well not exist. Your perception of a reality in which you matter to me is wrong. You don’t matter to me.”

And the child may hear implied by the parent, the very source of their existence, a more global: You don’t matter.

“Gaslighting” effects from serving as a caregiver for a person with dementia can include attachment wounds and existential distress.

To limit “gaslighting” effects, a caregiver might:

Give due weight to the illness. In dementia, the brain’s deterioration causes involuntary symptoms in the form of troubling words and actions. The unknown and uneven directions and rates of deterioration may leave words and behaviors nearly random. Unresolved concerns from the past may, possibly, influence the person’s words and behaviors, but it may primarily be a malfunctioning brain, not the person, doing the speaking and acting.

Acknowledge the realities of the illness.  Although we may desperately wish otherwise, no effective cure or treatment for dementia exists. Symptoms tend to persist and worsen in spite of any and all medicinal, behavioral, and environmental interventions.

Acknowledge the realities of witnessing the person’s words and actions. The human brain has evolved to work with reality very well, much of the time. Most people, most of the time, speak and act within a predictable range. Spoken and behavioral symptoms of dementia can seem alarming, surreal, and other-worldly. Feeling disoriented and distressed are normal responses to an abnormal situation.

Acknowledge inhumanity and humanity. Witnessing the inhumanity of another’s suffering and being helpless to do anything about it feels unbearable, but staying present and refusing to allow the person to suffer alone are acts of humanity.

Separate the self from what is happening. Survivors of hardships report the same wisdom: “I am here. What is happening is there. There are not the same. I am not what is happening. I am myself.”

. . . . .

In this post, I use the general term “dementia” to refer to specific neurocognitive disorders and other disorders involving deterioration of the brain. “Dementia” is a general term for a group of symptoms, not a disease in and of itself.

I serve as the primary care coordinator for my father, Robert “Bob” H. Giles, Jr., who developed symptoms of dementia at age 85. Before he lost his ability to reason and remember, he urged me to share any aspects of his story that might be helpful to others. I share with his permission and in his honor.

These are times of scarce mental health resources. Many have to serve as their own counselors. For assistance with existential distress, I have created this list of questions that may be helpful.

Serving as a caregiver for a person with dementia may, at times, feel traumatizing. These resources may also be of assistance.

Other posts of possible interest

If you live in the Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. area, provide care for a person with dementia, and are interested in forming a group, please contact me. I posted this request on 10/28/21 on the Everything Blacksburg page on Facebook.

This content is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical or professional advice. Consult a qualified health care professional for personalized medical and professional advice.

Self-Help Guide for Reducing Trauma Symptoms

If I were only allowed two, plain-language sentences to explain what trauma symptoms are and how to reduce them, these would be the sentences I would offer.

  1. Trauma symptoms result from the brain being overworked from being alarmed at too high of a level for too long.
  2. Reduction in trauma symptoms requires “un-alarming” the brain to a low enough level, for a long enough time, for it to restore to stable functioning.

Using one's own mind and heart as tools

I’m anticipating that people who have found this post may have already consulted sources like the National Institute for Mental Health or the National Center for PTSD. They may hypothesize that the troubling feelings, thoughts, or actions they are having might be considered symptoms of trauma-related disorders.

[One can only view official diagnostic criteria through purchase of access to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5).]

One of the leading cognitive theory-based counseling protocols for trauma disorders is cognitive processing therapy (CPT). This self-help guide is founded in CPT, with additions as noted below.

Becoming one’s own therapy provider

For various reasons, including privacy and safety concerns, or lack of access and resources, people with distressing symptoms may have come to the conclusion that they need to figure out how to become their own trauma therapists.

Auspiciously, the top, evidence-based counseling protocols for reducing trauma symptoms are based in cognitive theory. A premise of cognitive theory is that individuals learn and practice skills with a mentor, then take over as their own mentors, coaches, and cognitive therapists. One of the most heroic examples of this exchange is by the women of the Congo, many of whom could neither read nor write, who worked together using CPT in 2013.

Validating the idea that trauma therapy can be effectively self-administered, according to a CPT training I attended, a self-help CPT manual is in development.

About this guide

For people in need right now, during a period of intense, global distress, whose only access to counseling for trauma may be a mobile phone, I have attempted to, in plain language, using straight text:

  1. Synthesize and distill the findings of research on what reduces trauma symptoms for most people, most of the time, most efficiently, better than other ways, and better than doing nothing.
  2. Add pandemic-urgent elements to cognitive processing therapy (CPT) from other other cognitive theory-based protocols, including cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) and dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). These additions have been found to be helpful to clients doing trauma therapy while undergoing the stressors of lockdown and the threat of severe illness or death during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  3. Add the hard-won insights we gained from attempting to address trauma symptoms while isolated at home, from the distance of online-only counseling sessions.
  4. Add case study data, practice wisdom, and personal wisdom from clients’ and my own experiences with engaging in therapy for trauma.

Caveats

Writing plainly and simply about recovery from trauma is difficult. This guide may not be presented as systematically and thoroughly as some might need. Self-help may be insufficient. At this time, research data is insufficient to back self-help as an evidence-based treatment for trauma symptoms. For urgent or persistent trauma symptoms, contact a health care professional.

About this post

I consider this post 1) a summary of what might be helpful, and 2) a table of contents linking to previous and forthcoming, non-sequential, trauma-related posts and pages on this site. I have attempted to be as brief and concise as possible and to use as few clinical terms as possible. I will continue to update it.

Again, if at all possible, consult a qualified, licensed counselor for individualized guidance and support.

To get started

First, consider taking one or more of these online assessments to establish a baseline for your symptoms. Then continue to take them as you begin to serve as your own cognitive therapist. These scores can create tangible data by which you can track your progress and show areas of strength and challenge. Taking any assessment comes with the caveat that expert interpretation should be done by an expert.

CPT uses these assessments:

Other assessments in the public domain that might prove of interest:

  • PC-PTSD-5. Assessment and explanation here.
  • ACE Score. Assessment and explanation here.
  • If you have interest in other online assessments, these from the American Psychiatric Association are in the public domain. The Society of Clinical Psychology maintains a list of assessments in the public domain. Again, consult an expert for expert evaluation.

Next, familiarize yourself with stressor-related and trauma disorders and what treats them. Consider one, some, or all of these.

Then, read Becoming One’s Own Cognitive Therapist.

Consider taking online training in CPT to learn CPT first-hand and to possibly pass the protocol onto others in need. Several trainings are listed on our main CPT page and are free or low-cost.

Now that we know the central role alarm plays in both developing and reducing trauma symptoms, let’s go about un-alarming our brains.

Self-administering CPT

Option 1: Comprehensive. Uses the CPT therapists’ manual.

CPT is structured to consist of 12 sessions. The first 7 sessions are considered fundamental and the last 5 offer deeper insights. Some people experience noteworthy symptom reduction in a few sessions – termed “early responders” – and complete the protocol in fewer than 12 sessions.

Although Cognitive Processing Therapy for PTSD: A Comprehensive Manual (hereafter referred to as “CPT manual”) is intended for therapists, portions are highly readable and can be used to self-administer the protocol. Sections noted below can be found by turning pages in the print version or scrolling through the electronic version.

  1. Read “A Biological Model of PTSD and CPT,” pages 10-13.
  2. Read “Describing Cognitive Theory,” pages 89-93.
  3. Follow the directions in this CPT session outline.

Beginning with Chapter 5, which introduces Session 1, and subsequent chapters:

  1. Read the goals for each session.
  2. Read the sections in quotations. These are sample scripts for therapists which conveniently and succinctly summarize the central concepts of the session.
  3. Read the dialogues between CLIENT and THERAPIST which provide examples of the crucial concepts highlighted in that session.
  4. Study the handouts, usually collected at the end of each chapter.
  5. Complete the “Practice Assignment after Session ___ of CPT,” to practice specific cognitive skills.
  6. Retake assessments to track progress.

Consider using these posts to orient yourself to counseling for trauma, or to review concepts you have covered.

Option 2: Streamlined. 

    1. Study the CPT session outline.
    2. Complete the components requested in the CPT session outline.
    3. Read and reread posts in the bulleted list above. They are densely written, each word chosen to convey as much information as possible without straying into simplicity or error. Do the exercises to which they link.
    4. Use this Expanded ABC Worksheet.
    5. Retake assessments to track progress.
    6. If you find this method inadequate, consider using the comprehensive option.

Option 3: Fast track.

Trauma symptoms are caused by the brain being too alarmed for too long to function stably. People with trauma symptoms frequently describe feeling as if their “brains are on fire.” This makes sense. Although an over-simplification, when people have trauma disorders, the emotion centers of the brain overwhelm the cognitive centers.

We don’t have mechanical ways of restoring cognitive centers. Medications for trauma symptoms are of limited assistance. To restore their brains to stable functioning and, thus, reduce trauma symptoms, people have to use cognitive skills – their own hearts and minds as tools – to ease the brain’s emotion centers and activate cognitive centers.

Since cognitive theory posits that thoughts cause feelings, logically, then, thoughts that cause alarm are the subject of interest. Surprisingly, beliefs about the way people should be, others should be, and the way the world should work unconsciously cause alarm. When people or situations aren’t as they’re believed they should be, this is experienced as a discordant, existential threat.

Since the brain evolved to handle reality as it is, approaching, acknowledging, and accepting reality and the human condition as they are – complex and dynamic, however, painful and sorrowful they might be – begins to restore the brain to stability.

Here’s a summary of the inner dialogue of a person using cognitive skills to ease emotion centers and activate cognitive centers. Most terms used are in the glossary and in other posts on this site.

“I am aware of an intense inner state. Let me take back my consciousness. What am I feeling? Which are my primary feelings and which are my secondary feelings? Let me feel my natural, human, primary feelings. My brain is designed to handle them. They will come and they will go. Now, what are my secondary feelings, caused by thoughts? What thoughts am I thinking to cause these feelings? Of those thoughts, which are beliefs? Which are facts? Let me follow the facts. Based on the facts, and my own values and priorities, what would be the most realistic and helpful thing to say or do next – or not say or not do?”

Use that inner dialogue over and over again. Retake assessments. Consult yourself as your own cognitive therapist. If your self-help efforts are not producing desired results, it would be realistic and helpful to consult experts who may be of assistance.

Finally

I share openly that I developed trauma symptoms after experiences of school and community violence in 2007. I worked with two psychologists using cognitive theory-based protocols, achieved remission from trauma symptoms, and became a rostered provider of cognitive processing therapy in 2019. In 2021, I experienced re-emergence of some of those symptoms, including involuntary ones. I consulted a psychologist, reviewed my training, wrote about the re-emergence of trauma symptoms here, and wrote this, the index page of a guide to help people reduce trauma symptoms.

As Marsha Linehan, Ph.D., puts it in her DBT Skills Training Manual, “People may not have caused all their own problems, but they have to solve them anyway.” I am sorry for you and for me that we have experienced these hardships. AND. We can help ourselves continue on, living as richly and consciously as we can in the time we have.

Given the intense distress that trauma symptoms can cause, in order to reduce people’s suffering, urgency is merited. I’ve imagined myself inside a train at the window. A distressed person on the platform, at the last minute, calls out to me, “I have trauma symptoms! How can I help myself?!” I’m able to answer with only a few sentences as the train pulls away. What would I say?

“You are not what happened to you! And symptoms aren’t your fault! They’re a brain thing! You’ve got to un-alarm your brain! Thoughts cause feelings! Look at the content of your thoughts. Be humane and merciful. Do not judge. Do NOT impose rules. Follow facts! Be kind!”

CPT resources

Specific posts on this site that may be of interest (also linked to above)

Views expressed are the author’s own. This content is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical or professional advice. Consult a qualified health care professional for personalized medical and professional advice.

A Formula for Relational Effectiveness

Consider the following formulation for creating new possibilities for effective relationships, particularly partner relationships.

One person and another person. Each person is a separate, self-aware entity, a whole self, comprised of a true self, a personal history, and beliefs held about relationships taught by family, culture, and the media.

Each person is responsible for identifying and stewarding their own needs, wants, preferences, strengths, values, and priorities and discovering and discarding unhelpful beliefs about relationships.

The relationship. Each person contributes a portion of his/her/their whole self – ideally components of the true self – to mutually co-create a third entity, the relationship. Instead of attempting to shape or transform (or force) oneself or the other to meld personhoods into oneness, the contributions of each work together in synergy to create a novel, separate relationship that enriches each and both.

(Pronoun for both singular and plural, used hereinafter, is they/them.)

Inputs. Each person attempts to add to the relationship what helps it, not hurts it. Each person self-monitors what they contribute to the relationship.

Conflict. Conflict naturally arises from difference. To both protect and foster the co-created third entity – the relationship – each person maintains awareness of self, other, and the relationship, and speaks up when something is awry.

Negotiation. The purpose of negotiation is to – in mutual, well-intentioned synergy – decide what inputs each person can add or remove to protect and foster the relationship. Each person focuses on themselves and their experience of the relationship, rather than on fault-finding or blaming. (Each person’s insufficient self-awareness or relationship-awareness can often be sources of unhelpful inputs to the relationship.) Rather than “working on the relationship,” each person works to become aware of their own helpful and unhelpful inputs to the relationship.

In a relationship where both partners seek and practice self-awareness, sentences using “I” would often outnumber sentences using “you.”

Sources of conflict

Imposition of unconscious, unexamined beliefs about how self, others, and relationships are or should be is a primary source of conflict in relationships. Beliefs can be held so strongly that they are perceived as facts.

(The “power of love” to change people is a common belief in many cultures. Another one is, “They should know what I’m feeling or thinking without me having to tell them.” If we do the numbers on the human condition, particularly on the human brain, we pretty much don’t stand a chance. If we don’t tell them, the odds are enormous that they don’t know.)

Attempts to control or change the other person – to attempt to make them 1) do what is desired, or 2) not do what activates anxiety or fears – is a source of conflict in relationships.

Expectations – non-negotiated, unspoken, and/or mismatched – about the frequency, duration, and method of contact are another source of conflict in relationships.

Unilateral decision-making is a leading cause of relationship discord. Unilateral decision-making is the act of making a decision – the results of which might impact the other person – without, at minimum, prior notice, or, optimally, prior negotiation to increase probabilities of maximizing benefits and minimizing costs for both parties and the relationship.

Unilateral decision-making by one person often activates intense feelings and either-or thinking in the other person. Although perhaps not intended, statements such as these may be implied or perceived:

  • “My priorities are more important than your priorities.”
  • If I “didn’t think to tell you,” “forgot” to tell you, ghosted you, or no-showed: “You are forgettable and non-important.”
  • If I was “afraid to tell you”: “I avoided telling you the truth because my concern for my feeling of fear weighs more heavily than my concern for any troubled feelings you might have.”
  • “You can count on me as long as what you want from me is what I want to do.”
  • “I care for you less than you care for me.”
  • “I have more power in this relationship than you do.”
  • “Although we have a spoken or unspoken contract, it’s okay for me to breach it and not say or do as I promised because my needs and wants come first.”
  • “It is all about me.”

What the other person may feel, think, and do as a result of learning of, or experiencing the making of a unilateral decision:

  • Primary feelings: sad, afraid, mad, surprised
  • Secondary feelings: feeling hurt, overwhelmed, disoriented, discounted, de-identified, de-prioritized, devalued, betrayed, used/misused, excluded, deprived, full of rage, resentful, unsafe, doubtful, wary, humiliated, lonely
  • Actions: withdrawing, withholding, and shutting down; accusing and criticizing; moving from active, to passive, to indifferent; contemplating exiting the relationship and/or enduring it for reasons other than regard.
  • (Primary and secondary feelings are defined in this glossary.)

Why one person may make a unilateral decision without informing the other

  • The subject is within the person’s rights to make a solo decision.
  • The subject was new to both parties’ awareness and had not been discussed or negotiated.
  • In a relationship where people are attempting to change or control the other person – rather than mutually negotiate a relationship – the subject may have been avoided to avoid the other person’s objections or counter-control efforts.
  • Deficits in self-awareness and relationship-awareness, unacknowledged disinterest, or intention to hurt may result in unilateral decision-making.

Caveat: Regardless of the reason, unilateral decision-making can be a dealbreaker for relationships. Some relationship thinkers posit the existence of a relationship “bank account.” A single withdrawal that results in a significant sense of unsafety, distrust, or non-mutual power-sharing may require manifold deposits to replace.

To address conflict

  • Approach reality and acknowledge the data.
  • Are both parties able to agree on what constitutes data, facts, and reality? Is there an attempt to convince, contest, or defend? Since a relationship is based on mutual understanding, further progress may be unlikely.
  • For pain caused by insensitivity, apologize.
  • Examine intentions. Does each person have the best intentions for the other, regardless of whether or not the relationship exists? What is the purpose of each person’s engagement in the relationship?
  • Examine outcomes. Is synergy occurring? Does each person, for the most part, experience their personhoods and lives enriched by engagement in the relationship?
  • Attempt to mutually negotiate next steps.

Of possible interest

In addition to other sources, the above text is informed by cognitive theory, the concept of dialectical synergy born of “Opposites can both be true,” a concept central to dialectical behavior therapy, invented by Marsha Linehan, Ph.D., work by the Gottmans, and relational self-awareness theory, formulated by Alexandra Solomon, Ph.D. The accompanying hand-drawn diagram is adapted from Alexandra Solomon’s “My Stuff + Your Stuff = Our Stuff” slide from her training Loving Bravely: Helping Clients Who are Single, Dating, & Single-Again.

This content is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical or professional advice. Consult a qualified health care professional for personalized medical and professional advice.