Better relationships When close relationships based on intimacy and trust go wrong, whether they're sexual or not, it affects our mental and emotional wellbeing deeply.

In this article

Self-reflection

The importance of self-talk

Approaching relationship problems

The first step towards dealing with difficulties in your relationships is to look at your relationship with yourself. This might sound odd if you haven't thought about it before, but we all bring experiences, thoughts, expectations and needs to our relationships. You need a reasonable understanding of how this 'emotional baggage', as it's known, is contributing to problems in your relationship - and you can gain this using simple exercises in self-reflection.

Shut your eyes and try to think of nothing. Unless you've been meditating for years, this will be tricky. You'll find that your mind fills up with what psychologists call 'self-talk', a commentary we make to ourselves as we go through life. The mind hates a void, so it fills it with this commentary. When there's less in our minds (often at night) it comes to the fore, and it can contribute to anxiety or depression.

Self-talk often includes predictions of the way various situations will turn out. When you predict a negative outcome, you may be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. To explore this, use our thought diaries and mood monitors.

By examining self-talk, you can identify what you expect from a relationship. You might discover unrealistic expectations - couples should never disagree, for example, or that you should do everything together - that are contributing to the tension.

Sometimes you'll use more wide-ranging and destructive beliefs to bring problems to a dead end so it seems no further confrontation is needed. But this is, of course, just a way of avoiding the issues. Such generalisations include:

• it's my (or your) fault
• this kind of behaviour runs in my family
• it's just fate

Often, this kind of belief generates negative self-talk and becomes so entrenched that the very idea of change is frightening. Your present situation may be far from ideal, but at least you know the pitfalls. With change comes uncertainty, which might lead to something worse.

Breaking this deadlock can be hard, and it takes courage. In his book, Human Relationship Skills (ISBN 0415385873), Professor Richard Nelson-Jones identifies a seven-step strategy for solving relationship problems:

1. Confront the problem. Having acknowledged a problem exists in a calm way, point it out and ask the person to choose a time and place when they'll feel comfortable discussing it.
2. Understand each other's views. Take time to hear each other right through, without interruption. If feelings run high, wait until you're both calm or write down everything you have to say and swap what you've written. Think about it for a day before talking it through. It may be that each was failing to understand how the situation seemed to the other - if so, blame isn't helpful. Be honest about any misperceptions you've had.
3. Define the problem. Start by acknowledging what you agree about. Then try looking at the specific actions - by both of you - that keep the problem alive.
4. Search for solutions. Don't discount any possibility, however outrageous; just come up with as many as possible. Then look at each one together and talk through the rational consequences of it.
5. Agree on one solution. To do this, you both need to feel the problem has been resolved for you. A solution is not a way of letting one of you carry on as before while the other continues to feel hurt and unvalued.
6. Implement the solution. Keep to the agreement and, if one of you fails to do so, point it out in a calm, non-aggressive way.
7. Review the agreement. If things aren't working, repeat steps one to six, looking at why they're not working. Success in this process is not necessarily that all problems are completely resolved - but the process keeps going and is felt to be worthwhile by you both.

Finally, it sounds trite but the secret really is to keep talking.

This article was last reviewed in September 2006.
First published in June 2000.