EFT vs Gottman

I want to explain two main types of couples therapy, to help you choose what would be the best fit for you. I am an Emotionally-Focused Therapist (EFT).

Emotionally-Focused Therapy works essentially from the belief that our complex feelings, unprocessed trauma, and unmet needs are driving our behavior. Most people, including myself, have behaviors we aren’t super aware of. If we saw a video of ourselves in a disagreement with our partner, we might be surprised at times! But our partners are acutely aware of our behaviors, which often drive the cycle. EFT is low and slow self-awareness work, helping the couple look at their fears and insecurities, their learning from childhood, and more, that have been inadvertently causing disconnection in your current relationship. Over time, with insight and self-awareness, we can learn to take the risk into trying for more vulnerable behaviors that will increase connection and security with each other.

Pros: EFT tries to address the heart of the issues, and does a good job processing the emotional “brakes” that inhibit the flow of deep connection. EFT does an especially good job processing attachment insecurities and past ruptures.

Cons: EFT can feel mushy and vague at times during the process. It also relies on the clients being able to self-regulate enough during session to let the therapist work fluidly with each person (versus using worksheets to limit interruptions in session). It can feel at times like the therapist isn’t giving tools, and asks the clients to be patient with their own, and their partner’s, slow growth.

Gottman Therapy is a much more structured therapy. It works essentially from the belief that if you act better, you will feel better. In session and at home, the couple is given worksheets to help structure how to have safe, kind, and more productive conversations. It has excellent advice for how to behave in a way that has a very high chance of creating more harmony and happiness for a couple. It also comes with a lengthy assessment that evaluates every dimension of the relationship, which can feel helpful for some couples.

Pros: All the information and structure given is excellent. If couples can adhere to it, they will have clear tools that will make their relationship better. The couple is always aware of what will be effective vs what will be ineffective communication, there is no vagueness.

Cons: In my opinion, the major blocks with most couples are not due to a genuine lack of awareness of what is good vs bad behavior. Here is a simple test, imagine as objectively as you can how you look and sound when you are distressed. Now imagine you are on the receiving end of something similar, like from a parent or boss or ex-partner. Does that approach feel good? How would you instead like to be talked to when someone has a concern about your behavior?

In my opinion, we “know” what good vs bad communication is, but we all get temporary amnesia about this when we are distressed (because our nervous system is truly overwhelmed), and then later justify to ourselves our behavior. “Of course I lectured him, nothing else I do is getting through!” or “Maybe I brushed her off too much and ignored her, but she nags about the same thing constantly.”

At the end of the day, whatever model you choose, the most change is going to happen for the people willing to do the scary, hard work of looking at themselves more clearly and compassionately. Most everyone comes in to couples therapy wishing their partner would change. The big secret, the very hard secret, is that the most change will happen when each partner is willing to look at themselves in new ways. This self-awareness creates a safety in the dialogue.

You can think of relational change being “the more safe my partner feels, the more they lower their defenses and the more safe I feel, and the more I lower my defenses,” and conversely where relationships get stuck being, “the less safe my partner feels, the more they raise their defenses and the less safe I feel, which causes me to keep raising my defenses.”