Relationship glossary

The same sequence of reactions between two people, playing out again and again regardless of what the argument is about. The topic changes, the movement stays.

A pattern consists of a trigger, your reaction, his reaction to it and an outcome neither of you wanted. The crucial part: both do what, from their point of view, is meant to save the situation, and in doing so set off in the other exactly what they wanted to prevent.

The most common relationship pattern of all: one person seeks closeness by reaching out and asking, the other seeks safety by pulling back. The more one presses, the further the other withdraws.

Both movements are attempts to protect the relationship. That is why trying harder does not work. In this pattern, trying harder means: more of the same.

The state in which the body switches over during an argument and nuanced listening is biologically no longer possible. The pulse rises, thinking goes into emergency mode.

Someone who is flooded comes across as stubborn or indifferent and in truth cannot be reached. Afterwards the body needs about twenty to thirty minutes to calm down again. That is why agreed breaks with a fixed time to come back are one of the most effective tools in conflicts.

The feeling you show is often not the one that matters. Anger, irritation and coldness usually sit on top. Underneath lie fear, shame or the feeling of not counting.

The second feeling seems stronger, which is why we show it. But the other person reacts to what he sees. If you describe your anger, you get an answer to the anger, and the real issue stays undiscussed.

Two things that are constantly confused in an argument. Understanding what the other person has been through does not automatically mean agreeing with it. This confusion is the most common reason why conversations between couples get nowhere.

You can see it when someone starts correcting details in the middle of listening. "No, that's not how it was." "I never said that." Behind it lies the fear that listening without objecting counts as an admission.

In practice, the distinction means: you can summarise the other person's account without agreeing with it, and without giving up your own view. Only once that works does a conversation become possible in which both versions are allowed to stand side by side.

What helps is the order: first only repeat back what has reached you, and only then put your own view next to it. That sounds simple, and in an argument it is the hardest part.

Intention is what someone wanted. Impact is what arrived. The two can be completely different, and both are true at the same time.

Most couples argue about which of the two truths counts, and there is no answer to that. You did not mean to show him up, and he felt shown up. Both are true.

If you know the distinction, you can acknowledge the impact without taking back the intention. The sentence for it: "I understand that it felt that way." It is not an admission of guilt.

A reaction that is much stronger than the situation explains, because it connects to something older. A tone of voice, a look, a particular word.

Being triggered does not mean being oversensitive. It means that the present is touching something that was there before. The term only becomes useful when you look behind it instead of using it as an explanation.

Two inner states you can react from: one from an old feeling, the other from the present. Whoever reacts from the child self is defending themselves against something that is no longer happening today.

The term is useful because it separates two things that feel the same in an argument: today's situation and the feeling from back then. If you can tell them apart, you react differently without having to force yourself.

What it cannot do on its own: in the moment of an argument, this distinction is hardly available. That is exactly why in counselling we do not talk about it, we practise it.

The ability of two people to calm each other down without much being said. A look, a hand, a calm tone of voice.

That sounds more esoteric than it is. It is the reason why some couples find their way back to each other within minutes after an argument and others need days. Co-regulation can be learned, even by couples for whom it never came naturally.

The term from couples research for the period from pregnancy until about two years after the birth of the first child. It describes the most thoroughly studied phase of strain in the life of a partnership.

In a longitudinal study of 218 couples, relationship satisfaction dropped right after the birth, more for mothers than for fathers, and it stayed lower for at least four years. Childless comparison couples did not show this sudden drop. Whether the child was planned made no difference.

At the same time, the division of labour shifts for good. According to German data, 47 per cent of couples shared the housework roughly equally before the birth, only 24 per cent afterwards, and three years later the figure was still at that level.

The invisible work of thinking ahead, planning and remembering that comes on top of the visible work. Thinking about the shoes getting too small, knowing when the appointment is due, noticing that a present is missing.

This work has no end and no break, and in most families it rests with one person. It cannot be solved by dividing up tasks, only by handing over entire areas of responsibility.

A task is something you do. A responsibility is something you think about. The difference decides whether relief lasts one evening or one week.

"Can you take the bin out" hands over a task, the responsibility stays. "The paediatrician is completely yours from now on, including remembering the appointments" hands over the responsibility. As long as someone keeps checking up, the responsibility has not changed hands.

Describes a person who allows closeness until it becomes binding, and then withdraws. Not to be confused with someone who simply has a lot on their plate right now.

The term is used far too freely, often for people who simply express themselves differently from you. It is only useful if the pattern shows up over a longer period and in different situations.

The basic assumption about what happens when you need someone, shaped by early experiences. Some people assume that someone will come. Others assume that they will be left alone, and some that there will be a fight.

These assumptions carry on into adulthood and meet each other in relationships. Knowing about them is useful for understanding your own behaviour. It is not useful as a label for your partner.

The basic assumption that you count, even when you are not achieving anything and are of no use to anyone. Not to be confused with self-confidence, which relates to abilities.

Someone with self-confidence trusts themselves to do things. Someone with self-worth can also bear not being able to do something. In relationships, low self-worth rarely shows up as insecurity, but mostly as fitting in: you make yourself smaller so as not to be too much.

A person can change their behaviour if they want to. Not their character. The distinction decides what is worth negotiating in a relationship.

The test question is simple: could he change it if he decided to? Then it is behaviour, and it needs to be talked about. Or is he just like that? Then it is character, and working against it only costs energy.

A statement about what you will do, not about what the other person has to stop doing. "If you raise your voice, I will leave the room" is a boundary. "You are not allowed to raise your voice" is a demand.

The difference matters because a boundary depends only on you, and therefore holds even when the other person does not go along with it.

A demand with a threatened consequence that the other person is supposed to avert by changing. "If you don't come with me, it's over."

The difference from a boundary lies in its purpose. A boundary protects you and applies regardless of how the other person reacts. An ultimatum tries to steer the other person's behaviour and loses its effect the moment it is not carried out.

A behaviour that is considered a warning sign of a problematic relationship. Originally meant for serious things: control, belittling, overstepping boundaries.

These days the term is used for almost everything, including differences and quirks. That makes it useless, because real warning signs get lost in a long list. Real warning signs are: control, systematic belittling, isolation from your people, and any form of violence.

A counselling path for couples that starts not with the topic of the argument, but with the recurring movement behind it. Developed by Meryem Erkan, built on a first session and four sessions that follow it.

The method first makes the pattern visible, then the level underneath, and then practises a fixed sequence for difficult conversations directly in the session. The principle behind it: practising, not nodding.

Diagnoses. Narcissism, borderline and similar terms are diagnoses that professionals make after a thorough assessment, and of the person themselves. They are not suitable as a description of a partner you have read an article about.

How to recognise a relationship you should get out of is not found in a diagnosis, but in what happens: control, systematic belittling, isolation, violence in words or actions.

If you recognise yourself in this, the "Violence against Women" helpline (in Germany) can be reached around the clock and free of charge on 116 016.