The Dysfunctional Relationships of Givers and Takers: An Analysis of Toxic Chemistries

By Michael A. Church, Jess G. Kohlert and Charles I. Brooks,

In your relationships does it matter if you and your partner are a giver or a taker? Are there different types of givers and takers? Whats the secret to a good marriage? How can you save a rocky marriage? What is the best way to get counseling and what should you expect from counseling? What if a serious psychological disorder is involved in your relationship? The authors, professional psychologists, answer these and many more questions by examining clinical case studies from their counseling practice.

The authors present an original model that divides both givers and takers into four different types, and they use the model to analyze their case studies and illustrate why relationships can succeed or fail. They also discuss various personality disorders (such as, obsessive-compulsive, narcissistic, dependent, paranoid, borderline, and antisocial), and how such conditions can complicate treatment of dysfunctional relationships.

This book is an essential first step for anyone concerned about a relationship, or who just wants to learn more about the dynamics of relationships from the perspective of givers and takers.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse
• Release date: Aug 8, 2011
• ISBN: 9781463423995

Michael A. Church

Drs. Church, Brooks & Kohlert have been professors of psychology at King's College in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania for many years. They are all married and have have children. Dr. Church has been engaged in private practice for over thirty years, and has worked with many individuals and couples with respect to premarital, marital and other relationship difficulties. Dr. Brooks has published an extensive research on a variety of psychological topics, and Dr. Kohlert has also published research and is in the process of completing requirements as a licensed psychologist in Pennsylvania.

Book preview

Contents

PREFACE

~1~

INTRODUCTION

~2~

GIVERS AND TAKERS

~3~

BALANCED V. UNBALANCED PERSONALITIES

~4~

TYPES OF GIVERS AND TAKERS

~5~

CASE STUDIES: GIVERS WITH GIVERS

~6~

CASE STUDIES: TAKERS WITH TAKERS

~7~

CASE STUDIES: GIVERS WITH TAKERS

~8~

CASE STUDIES: BALANCED PERSONALITIES

~9~

PERSONALITY DISORDERS

~10~

TREATMENT

~11~

CONCLUSIONS

SUGGESTED READINGS

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

PREFACE

Imagine a married man beginning marital counseling, and the conversation between him and the counselor going somewhat like this:

Counselor: So, how would you describe your marriage?

Client: I don’t think there’s much hope for it, Doctor. I didn’t realize it at first, but now I can see that we’re both takers. I think we’re both used to people giving to us, and now here we are demanding that from each other. It’s never going to work.

Now imagine a different client, also seeking counseling to help stabilize a troubled marriage:

Counselor: So, how would you describe your marriage?

Client: Well, this will take some time, but let me say I really believe we have a lot going for us and we’re going to be able to work things out. After all, I’m a giver and she’s a taker, so we complement each other quite well.

These hypothetical exchanges illustrate some common misconceptions about people and relationships. First of all, the comments suggest that people can conveniently be categorized as either givers or takers. After reading this book, you will realize that putting people into one category or another does not show the complexities of relationships. In fact, in this book we describe four types of givers and four types of takers to try to capture this complexity. Secondly, the comments above suggest that only givers and takers can get along; put two givers or two takers together and the relationship is doomed. Once again, in this book we show that picture is oversimplified. All people, whether they are givers or takers, have the potential to achieve a balanced relationship if they are willing to work at it.

This book should help you become more aware of the dynamics of negative relationships and how people become involved in and maintain these kinds of unions. The book explains how to understand better the effects of negative relationships and how to explore ways to deal with a relationship that is simply not working. Because they are based on people who have sought help through counseling, most of the relationships we analyze in this book are dysfunctional. Please remember, however, that our emphasis on negative relationships should not be taken to mean that certain types of givers and takers can never achieve a productive relationship.

The book is grounded on actual case studies taken from our files. In analyzing these cases, we follow a unique and original model that divides both givers and takers into four distinct personality types: Givers can be self-sacrificing, hypersensitive, indecisive, or benevolent dictator; Takers can be malevolent dictator, hedonistic, unstable, or asocial. Although this division is unique, the criteria for these categories are grounded in personality dysfunctions that are well established in the psychological and psychiatric professions. Also, most of the people in our case studies were psychologically tested while they were in individual or marital outpatient counseling, so we are confident in our diagnoses and analyses.

We have written this book with several audiences in mind. We believe the book is appropriate as a self-improvement book for the lay audience. We also believe it is appropriate for clients who are in counseling and who need some insights into their particular styles in relationships. Our chapters on personality disorders and treatment are aimed at people who want to take a more comprehensive look at the dynamics underlying relationship problems, and how they can be better avoided or managed. Finally, we believe our book will prove useful in college-level courses dealing with the social psychology of attraction and relationships, marriage, and personality disorders.

Michael Church

Charles Brooks

Jess Kohlert

April 2011

King’s College,

Wilkes-Barre, PA

~1~

INTRODUCTION

Through many years of teaching, clinical practice, and personal experiences, we have had the opportunity to conduct an informal survey. We have asked hundreds of never married, married, or previously married people a simple question: How many of your relationships have been worthwhile? All things considered, when you think of the intimate relationships you have been involved with, how many of them have brought you more satisfaction than dissatisfaction? In answering the question, we asked them to consider only the relationship itself. For instance, many people might have had what they consider to be a bad marriage, but remain grateful they married because children they adore and love resulted from the marriage. In this case, we asked them to focus on what they got out of the relationship from a personal and psychological perspective, regardless of any joyful by-products, such as children, that may have come from the relationship.

A few of the people we have asked were young adults in their twenties and thirties, but most of them were over forty, and some were even in their fifties and sixties. Regardless of age, however, most answers to the question fit into one of two categories: None or One. That is correct. Nearly everyone we ask says they have never had a relationship where the positives outweighed the negatives, or they can only think of one relationship where that statement holds true.

This surprising result suggests several realities about intimate relations:

black.jpg     We often see things very differently in retrospect. Many obviously thought they were in much better relationships while in them than they did after their relationships ended.

black.jpg     A healthy and satisfying relationship is extremely hard to come by. It is very hard to cultivate a relationship that strengthens our commitment to it.

black.jpg     If we have a decent partner (and decent does not mean perfect!), we should think long and hard about ending the relationship when it is not everything we want or hope for.

black.jpg     If we have a decent partner, working very hard and putting forth concentrated effort to improve the relationship is a far better strategy than giving up on it because it does not meet our (often romanticized) ideals.

The last statement above captures the essence of the task facing those in intimate relationships, and it is this task that we want to explore in this book. In other words, when it comes to building a relationship, how do partners clarify, define, and design the task facing them while they are in the relationship? How can we develop a more satisfying and meaningful relationship with someone we believe is worth committing to, before problems escalate out of hand and become too ingrained to correct?

We will say it again: Good relationships are hard to come by. In our informal survey, we asked a follow-up question to those people who answered with a number greater than two: What happened to those worthwhile relationships? Why did they end? The answers are usually along these lines: I’m sorry to say I cheated on (him/her); I just took (him/her) for granted; I didn’t realize I had something special that you don’t find every day; I just let the relationship slip away by not taking care of it.

These people learned that as we get older, the likelihood of finding a good mate decreases. Almost all of them wish they could turn back the hands of time, and they spoke of loneliness, unhappiness, and even depression. There are valuable lessons in their comments, and this perspective is useful to keep in mind as you read the material that follows.

What makes a good relationship between two people? Since Adam and Eve, people have speculated about what makes two people get along—or get at each other’s throats on a regular basis. When a couple celebrates an extremely long marriage, say fifty years or even longer, often the first question posed to them is, So what’s your secret to staying together for so long? Poets, novelists, playwrights, song writers, philosophers, psychologists, and the folks down at the local diner have all speculated about relationships. One answer to this age-old question is that good couples settle into a mutually agreeable pattern of interaction where one is primarily a giver and the other is primarily a taker.

This idea that some people seem more disposed to give, and others to take, is often applied to the study of relationships. There is an intuitive appeal, for instance, to the prediction that two takers are not going to get along. After all, someone has to give. By the same token, two givers might live in perpetual frustration because neither is willing to take what the other offers. A pairing of a giver and taker, however, appears ideal: One partner gives, the other takes.

Several analyses of givers and takers in relationships have been offered in recent years. In Givers, Takers, & Other Kinds of Lovers (2007), Josh McDowell and Paul Lewis approach the topic from a religious perspective. In particular, they focus on sexual intimacy in marriage. They emphasize the importance of loving without conditions: I love you, PERIOD. No ifs, ands, or buts. McDowell and Lewis say that people who love, period, give in a relationship without demanding anything in return. They note that such a display of love requires God’s Holy Spirit dwelling within each partner and helping them provide unconditional love. A religious approach to the study of givers and takers in a relationship is certainly valuable and helpful to many people. The book, however, is based on faith, and does not venture into more psychological analyses based on more systematic inquiry into relationships. This observation is not a criticism of Givers, Takers, & Other Kinds of Lovers. We merely want to point out that the book has narrow and limited boundary conditions.

Joe Kuttler’s book, The Givers and The Takers (2004) says there are three types of people: givers, takers, and alcoholics. He says we are all blessed or cursed to one degree or another with one or more of these types. Kuttler approaches givers and takers from the perspective of alcoholism. He notes that all true alcoholics are takers. For alcoholics to transform their lives and achieve sobriety, they must become givers. Like Givers, Takers, & Other Kinds of Lovers, Kuttler’s book is helpful, but only to a limited sample of people: alcoholics and those around the alcoholic who are affected by the problem.

In The Givers and the Takers (1983), Cris Evatt and Bruce Feld present a brief look at the personalities of givers and takers. They provide a variety of anecdotes describing the actions of givers and takers in various situations to give the reader a flavor of some of the complex dynamics involved. Evatt and Feld’s book is certainly more detailed than the previous ones described, but their analyses remain superficial at best, almost a tease into some of the complexities involved in relationships between givers and takers. They describe the dominant characteristics of givers and takers along a variety of personality dimensions. Although they make excellent points, they provide no clinical case studies, nor do they link their statements with what is presently known in clinical psychology about how personality dysfunctions enter the picture. Finally, the authors do not cover instances where giver/taker styles result in dysfunctional relationships that need psychological intervention.

Evatt and Feld’s book is long on opinion and short on foundation. For instance, they say, Each of us is born a Giver or a Taker (p. 9). We doubt most psychologists would agree with this statement, and we also doubt the authors would be able to provide convincing evidence supporting it. This book, however, is a valuable primer into the topic of givers and takers. It is an attractive, simple, and casual journey into everyday interactions between givers and takers. Because it is limited in scope and depth, however, many important points about the dynamics of giver/taker relationships are left uncovered.

These three books provide important information about givers and takers. There is, however, much more that needs to be said, especially with respect to the following points:

black.jpg     There are different types of givers and takers, types based on personality styles. It is an oversimplification merely to call someone a giver or a taker.

black.jpg     Giving/taking styles develop over time, and are largely the product of emotions and actions developed early in life.

black.jpg     Specific giving/taking styles can be associated with specific personality dysfunctions.

black.jpg     Giver and taker interactions often become volatile and toxic, requiring counseling, or ending the relationship.

black.jpg     A complete analysis of givers and takers must include a discussion of treatment options for relations that become psychologically dysfunctional and damaging.

One of the greatest mysteries of relationships involves the question of what causes us to be attracted and attached to certain individuals and not others. With so many potential mates and friends in the world, what leads us to focus our attention and energy on certain people as opposed to others? A related and even more perplexing question asks why people continue in relationships that are at best unsatisfying and, at worst, destructive to their well being.

There is a lot of social psychological research on what psychologists call interpersonal attraction. We use this terminology despite the observation of a colleague who commented: Why don’t we call this area of investigation interpersonal repulsion, since we don’t like most people we get to know well? Of course, what he is echoing in this statement relates to the conventional wisdom that familiarity breeds contempt. Humor and folk wisdom notwithstanding, psychological studies generally show that we tend to pair up with people we find physically attractive, share physical proximity with, who seem to like us, and who are similar to us in attitudes, beliefs, interests, and values. According to social psychologist Eliot Aronson (2009), similar characteristics help lead to friendship formation and maintenance, although physical appearance is less important and communication style more significant in these cases, especially for women.

The research is consistent in describing the variety of traits and characteristics that appear to increase the likelihood that two people will form a friendship or a romantic bond. Some popular online dating services actually use algorithm models to try to match people on trait profiles that might make them compatible. Nevertheless, these kinds of analyses remain incomplete and do not give us a full understanding of the mystery and dynamics of relationships. Certainly, we meet many people to whom we are physically attracted and with whom we share important personality qualities. The fact is, however, we only get into a relationship with a tiny fraction of these people even if the opportunity for greater involvement is often present. Pieces of the puzzle are obviously missing. Even more intriguing is how people get into, and remain in, relationships that are clearly going nowhere and are damaging to their self esteem and life in general. Why, therefore, do people persist in such relationships that are, at best, a waste of time and energy?

There is a chemistry to relationships that is significant and underlies what we can observe directly. In other words, there appears to be need-driven and largely unconscious aspects of our personalities that pull us toward some people, even when logic and objectivity are inconsistent with the attraction and attachment. We all have observed the union of two people who seem entirely mismatched. We have all also seen some people adamantly refuse to leave a relationship that is obviously unfulfilling and, perhaps, even abusive. How can we explain these relationships that defy sound judgment, reason, and common sense?

In essence we are saying there is a chemistry to relationships that is crucial to a complete understanding of relationship dynamics, especially when the pairing leads us to be a lesser person than we know we can be. To use a chemical analogy, two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule make something quite essential, water. Add an oxygen molecule, however, and we have hydrogen peroxide, a useful liquid for some purposes but one we had better not drink. Suddenly the chemistry changes. By the same token, there are good people out there who are not good for us. If possible, we want to find out who these people are before becoming attached to them and expending a tremendous amount of time, energy, and resources. More importantly, perhaps, there are people out there who are good for us, but whom we are not particularly interested in or attracted to.

In this book we will explore and analyze the different kinds of chemistry in different types of relationships. Obviously, identifying toxic chemistries in relationships requires an operational foundation from which to judge the quality of a pairing. Although admittedly an oversimplification, we will define the quality of a relationship from the viewpoint of the pair members. That is, a positive relationship is one that helps make an individual feel better about himself or herself, more creative, happier, more open and social, and more productive. On the other hand, a negative relationship is one that leads an individual to be self-absorbed and preoccupied, less efficient, unhappy, and lower in self-esteem and self-respect.

Untold pain and suffering is caused by poor choices in relationships. Most human suffering is not caused by lack of money, poor health, where one lives, and so on; most suffering, in fact, is caused by relationship problems. Along these lines, psychologist Diane Papalia (2007) notes that the single best predictor of happiness for married people is their satisfaction in their marriage. Consistent with this conclusion, our experiences with individuals in outpatient counseling has shown that the vast majority of these individuals are having significant difficulty accepting and adjusting to problems in relationships, which is the primary reason they enter therapy in the first place. Psychiatric inpatients show similar etiology with their psychological problems, although to a more extreme degree. Because the dynamics of relationships appears so fundamental to psychological problems, it is vital to help people minimize their pain and suffering in relationships. It is essential to help them find and enhance the positive motivation, effort, and happiness that occur when they are in healthy relationships.

~2~

GIVERS AND TAKERS

In the context of a relationship, what do most people think when they hear the terms givers and takers? We have posed the question to many people over the years, and find that most people see the giver as the good guy, someone who is selfless, sensitive, caring, and empathic. Conversely, the taker is viewed as a selfish, egocentric, manipulative predator who is essentially the bad guy. After analyzing thousands of relationships over decades, both personally and professionally, we have come to the conclusion that this type of dichotomy is simplistic and invalid. In relationships there is usually neither a good guy nor a bad guy. Rather, there are two people who are, quite naturally, primarily self-interested with different ways of expressing their wants and needs and seeking to fulfill them. To look for the good person wearing white and the bad one in black misses the point. Both are playing well-defined roles that have developed over many years, and it takes two to play out the consequences of these patterns. Detailed analyses of relationships, for instance, generally show that the motives