What are the four behaviors that cause 90% of all divorces?

If you are asking about the “four behaviors that cause 90% of all divorces,” you are not alone. Many people hear about this idea on social media, then look around their own kitchen table and wonder if what they are seeing means the marriage is headed straight for a Washington divorce. The phrase comes from research on communication patterns, not from the legal system, but it lines up very closely with what I see in real Superior Court cases.

Those four behaviors are often called the “Four Horsemen”: criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. They are not part of the Washington statutes, but when they settle into a relationship, they are very often the soundtrack to a marriage that eventually shows up in the family law docket.

First, a quick reality check on Washington law

Before we unpack the four behaviors, it helps to understand how little the law itself cares about “fault.”

In Washington:

• We are a no‑fault divorce state. The only legal ground for divorce is that the marriage is “irretrievably broken,” meaning you no longer get along.
• You do not have to prove that your spouse criticized you, stonewalled you, or did anything else wrong. Saying the marriage has broken down is enough.
• Judges do not award more property or more time with the children as a reward for being the “better” communicator. They divide property based on what is just and equitable and decide parenting plans based on what is best for the children.

So, legally, there is no RCW section that says “If your spouse uses contempt, you automatically get 90% of the estate.” The research about divorce prediction and the four behaviors lives in the counseling and psychology world.

Where these behaviors become very relevant to Washington law is in how they affect parenting, settlement, and the overall tone of your case.

The four behaviors in plain English

Research from Dr. John Gottman and others has shown that four communication patterns, when they become chronic, predict divorce with very high accuracy, often cited as over 90 percent. Those are:

1. Criticism
2. Contempt
3. Defensiveness
4. Stonewalling

Let’s put some real‑life color on each one and then talk about how they show up in Washington family law cases.

Criticism: when complaints become character attacks

All couples complain. The problem is when complaints shift from specific behaviors to global statements about who your partner is as a person.

Criticism sounds like:

• “You never think about anyone but yourself.”
• “You are so lazy.”
• “You always screw everything up.”

Research calls this the first horseman because it often opens the door to the others. Instead of “I am upset you forgot to pick up the kids,” it becomes “You are a terrible parent.”

In a Washington divorce, I see criticism:

• In text messages and emails that get attached to declarations.
• In parenting disputes, where each parent paints the other as all‑bad instead of focusing on specific concerns.

Judges are not blind to the tone. When they see chronic, intense criticism, they may worry that a parent will continue to speak about the other parent this way in front of the children, which can factor into provisions about communication and “abusive use of conflict.”

But criticism alone is not what tends to end marriages. It is what it often leads to next.

Contempt: the biggest single predictor

Contempt is different from anger. It is a mix of disgust and superiority, a sense that your partner is beneath you. Researchers have found contempt to be the single strongest predictor of divorce.

Contempt sounds and looks like:

• Eye‑rolling, sneering, mocking.
• Sarcasm meant to wound, not to joke.
• “You are pathetic.” “Wow, nice parenting.” “I cannot believe I married someone like you.”

It is fueled by long‑simmering negative thoughts about the other person. Once contempt is chronic, partners stop assuming good intentions. Every interaction becomes another chance to confirm the worst story you tell yourself about them.

In Washington cases, contempt shows up in:

• Evaluations and GAL reports that say “the parents routinely belittle each other in front of the children.”
• Exchanges at school or activities where staff witness open mocking or name‑calling.
• Co‑parenting apps and emails where the tone is dripping with disrespect.

The statute on parenting plans allows the court to restrict a parent’s time if there is “abusive use of conflict” that harms a child’s psychological development. Chronic contempt between parents in front of the kids can push a judge to build in protections, like more structured exchanges or limitations on direct communication.

Again, the law is not punishing contempt as “fault.” It is responding to its impact on children and the ability to co‑parent.

Defensiveness: the automatic “It is not my fault” reaction

Defensiveness usually shows up as making excuses, counter‑attacking, or playing the victim instead of taking even a small bit of responsibility.

It sounds like:

• “Maybe I am late, but you are worse.”
• “It is not my fault, nothing is ever enough for you.”
• “Everyone always blames me.”

Over time, defensiveness shuts down real problem‑solving. If nobody can acknowledge a missed pickup, a harsh tone, or a spending decision, nothing changes.

In a Washington divorce, defensiveness plays out when:

• A parent cannot admit any parenting missteps, even small ones, which makes their testimony feel less credible.
• Discovery responses fight every request instead of providing reasonable financial information, which increases costs.
• Mediation becomes impossible because every concern is met with a counter‑attack.

The law itself is neutral about personality traits. But judges do notice who can say “Yes, that happened, here is what I am doing differently” versus who insists they have never done a single thing wrong.

Stonewalling: shutting down and checking out

Stonewalling is withdrawing from interaction. You stop engaging, stop responding, and emotionally or physically leave the conversation.

It looks like:

• Sitting in silence while the other person talks.
• Walking away mid‑conversation and refusing to revisit the issue.
• Numbing out behind a phone, TV, or work to avoid your partner.

Research finds stonewalling often comes last. After enough criticism, contempt, and failed attempts to defend yourself, shutting down can feel like the only way to survive the argument.

In a Washington case, stonewalling shows up when:

• One spouse will not respond to settlement proposals or emails about the kids until the court forces action.
• A parent ignores parts of the parenting plan they do not like but also will not file a motion to change them.
• Discovery deadlines come and go without responses, so the other side has to file motions to compel.

Courts can respond by entering default orders, imposing sanctions, or building in more specific requirements in the parenting plan or property division. Again, the law’s concern is not that stonewalling “caused” the divorce, but that it makes it harder to reach workable agreements and follow orders.

How these four behaviors play out in Washington divorces

Putting this together, here is how the four behaviors I see in the research line up with what I see in Washington Superior Courts:

• They often describe the emotional climate in marriages that end in divorce.
• They are not legal grounds for divorce here. You still just allege that the marriage is irretrievably broken under RCW 26.09.030.
• They strongly influence:
  • How difficult negotiation and mediation will be.
  • How parenting plans are structured, especially around communication and conflict.
  • How judges view each parent’s ability to support the children’s relationship with the other parent.

In short, the “four behaviors that cause 90% of divorces” are really the four behaviors that describe how many relationships behave on their way to becoming “irretrievably broken” in the eyes of Washington law.

A realistic Washington‑style example

Example: The four behaviors in a King County case

Jamie and Alex have two young children in King County. By the time they file for divorce, their communication looks like this:

• Jamie sends long texts criticizing Alex’s parenting and money management.
• Alex responds defensively and then often stops responding at all.
• Exchanges at school are tense, with eye‑rolling and sarcastic remarks in front of the kids.

When they end up in court:

• The Petition simply alleges the marriage is irretrievably broken. The four behaviors are not pled as “grounds.”
• The judge reads dozens of contempt‑filled messages. That supports a finding that there has been “abusive use of conflict” and that detailed parenting‑plan provisions are needed to protect the children from ongoing hostility.
• Mediation fails because every proposal is met with criticism and defensiveness, so the case goes to trial, increasing costs for both of them.

The Four Horsemen did not create a legal entitlement to more property for either parent. They did make the emotional and legal road much rougher.

What this means for you, practically, in Washington

If you recognize these four behaviors in your relationship, it does not automatically mean you are headed for divorce court. Researchers and therapists are clear that these are patterns, not destiny, and they can be changed with effort and support.

From a Washington legal perspective, here is what usually matters most:

• If you are still together and trying to decide what to do, know that you can end a marriage without proving fault, but you can also seek counseling to see if the patterns can be changed before you file.
• If you are already in a case, how you communicate from this point forward especially in writing and in front of the children can still shape your parenting plan, your credibility, and how expensive your case becomes.
• If any of the conflict patterns include domestic violence, threats, or stalking, that moves us out of the “communication style” conversation and into safety planning, protection orders, and RCW 7.105 and 26.09.191 issues.

The law in Washington will call your situation “irretrievably broken” or not. The four behaviors are more about how you get there, and how hard it is to navigate the legal process once you do.

A divorce consultation can help you understand the legal issues if you decide to move forward.

If you are weighing your options and wondering what a fair outcome would look like in your specific situation, our office is available to walk through the numbers, the law, and your goals with you and to help you chart a path forward that makes sense for both your head and your heart.

When you think about the Four Horsemen in your own situation, do you feel more worried about their effect on your kids, or about what they say about whether the relationship can be repaired at all?