Chapter 11 : Conflict (Unit 15) Flashcards
CONFLICT
- Conflict arises when one individual’s pursuit of their goals interferes with the
other person’s goals - Inevitable in interdependent relationships, where our outcomes are affected by
the actions of the other person
– Any two individuals will occasionally differ in their motives, beliefs, opinions &
these incompatibilities (whether they are occasional or chronic) create conflict
– Runs the gamut from minor things (e.g., which movie to watch) to major life
decisions (e.g., whether to have children & how to raise them)
– Even in generally compatible couples, incompatibilities will occasionally arise - Competing motives constantly in flux: e.g., autonomy vs. connection
WHAT DO COUPLES DISAGREE ON?
Children, chores, communication…
(see graph)
INSTIGATING EVENTS
* Sources of conflict are diverse, but instigating events can be grouped into four
general categories
* Criticism = verbal or nonverbal acts that communicate unfair dissatisfaction
with partner
* Illegitimate demands = requests that are excessive and that seem unjust
* Rebuffs = occur when one is denied a desired reaction
* Cumulative annoyances = relatively trivial events that become irritating with
repetition (“social allergens”)
- So, conflicts are inevitable
- But they do not have to be destructive
– How we disagree during conflict is
more important than whether we
disagree or what we disagree about
(although some topics may be more
challenging) - Can exercise control over our
actions (even if it’s very hard)
TYPES OF COUPLES
We strive to stay calm when we’re fighting. We value each other’s opinions, and we validate each other even when we
disagree and have to exert some self-control to stay cool as
we seek a compromise.
We have passionate arguments that are sometimes loud and volcanic, but our relationship remains warm and loving
because we make up with a lot of laughter and affection.
We avoid fights. Discussions of disagreements can just
make things worse, so we often “agree to “disagree” and wait for problems to work themselves out.
Our arguments are sour and sarcastic. There’s a lot of disrespect. We may sulk and simmer, but sooner or later we
snipe at each other and trade mean insults.
1- Validating = compromise often & work out problems to mutual satisfaction
2- Volatile = frequent, passionate conflict, tempered by positive affect (humour,
displays of fondness)
3- Conflict-avoiding = ”agree to disagree”, avoid conflict head-on
* Couples where at least one member is validating tend to be happier
* All three types can be stable, but will work only to the extent that they help
maintain “golden” 5:1 ratio between positive and negative interactions
4- Hostile = least stable pairing, characterized by high levels of hostility
– Engaged subtype: attempt to address
disagreements, but do so badly
– Argue often & intensely, often with
insults, name-calling, put-downs, etc.
– Detached subtype: let disagreements
fester, are emotionally detached (although
with occasional bouts of sniping)
THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE
RELATIONSHIP APOCALYPSE
- Exchanges of unhappy couples characterized by more negative affect & less positive affect
– 10x more likely to use negative tone of voice - Expression of negative emotions (e.g., anger, hurt, sadness) is not necessarily bad for
relationships—can actually increase closeness - But there are four hostile dynamics that do not bode well for relationships: criticism, contempt, defensiveness, stonewalling
CRITICISM
* Distinction between complaining and criticism
– Criticism = attacking personality or character rather than airing out
disagreements by focusing on specific behavior
* More likely to put partner on the defensive
“I can’t believe you didn’t take out the trash, AGAIN. You are so irresponsible!”
Vs.
“I’m upset that you didn’t take out the trash.”
* Shift from complaining to criticism commonly arises if complaints are not
addressed (due to poor communication and/or unwillingness to address the
complaint)
* Unlike complaints, criticisms tend to be generalizations
– You always, you never
* Kitchen sinking = ”bundling” complaints
– Similar effect to criticism of partner’s personality because it is seems so
overwhelming & pervasive
– Results in conversation drifting off-beam (wander from topic to topic without
resolving anything)
CONTEMPT
* Most destructive of all the horsemen
* Contempt = criticism coupled with scorn & disgust, sense of superiority
– Intention to insult and psychologically abuse partner
– Includes insults & name-calling, hostile humour, mocking, nonverbal cues of
disgust (e.g., sneering)
* Underlying feelings of disgust & negativity towards partner
– See them as stupid, disgusting, incompetent, foolish
* Loss of admiration for partner
DEFENSIVENESS
Protecting against the attack by—e.g.:
* Denying responsibility (“I didn’t say anything wrong!”)
* Making excuses (“I didn’t tell you because I knew you’d blow it out of proportion”)
* Cross-complaining (“I hate how you always leave your junk in my car!” “Well,
maybe if you weren’t so obsessed with your car you could help clean up around
the house for once!”)
* Yes-butting (“We could try that but it would never work”, “Yeah, I did that but I
don’t see why you’re making such a big deal out of it”
* Repeating yourself without paying attention to what the other is saying
* Playing the victim, whining
* Defensiveness is an understandable
reaction when feeling beleaguered
* But it but obstructs communication &
tends to escalate rather than deescalate conflict
– Engenders feelings of tension and
prevents partners from hearing &
understanding each other
STONEWALLING
* Withdrawing and disengaging from
meaningful conversation with the partner
– Removing oneself from the conversation,
not responding or offering monosyllabic
responses, ignoring the partner
* Provocative & destructive—conveys
disapproval, creates distance, precludes
resolution
FLOODING
- Flooding = sense of being overwhelmed by negative emotion & strong physiological arousal
- Impedes constructive discussion; leads to hostility, defensiveness, withdrawal
- With chronic flooding: hypervigilance for signs of attack, immersion in distress-maintaining thoughts
– Statements like “we need to talk” can
immediately put partner on defensive
DEMAND/WITHDRAW PATTERN
- Demand/withdraw pattern = destructive pattern of conflict where one person
presses the issue, while the other withdraws & avoids discussing the issue - Cyclical pattern: the more the demander pushes, the more the withdrawer
retreats - Because arguments are left unsettled, leads to serial arguing
– Linked to personal and relationship distress - Men more likely to be withdrawers/stonewallers, women more likely to be demanders
– Pattern seen cross-culturally
- Biological perspective
– Men experience stronger & longer-lasting physiological stress response
during conflict, more prone to flooding
– More reactive to conflict - Differences in socialization
– Boys socialized to hide & suppress emotions, focus on pursuing
autonomous goals
– Girls socialized to express feelings, focus on relationships & fostering
intimacy/closeness, receive more support when expressing emotions - Differences in power
– The person who wants change is in low-power position, must rely on the
other to create change
– The person who benefits from the status quo will be resistant to change,
holds the power in the situation
– Women tend to desire more change in relationship than men, puts them in
the low-power role in heterosexual relationships
- Comparison of heterosexual, gay, & lesbian couples
– If something essential about men vs. women, would not expect to see demand-withdraw asymmetry in gay & lesbian couples
– Mixed findings - Some have found no difference in overall levels of demand/withdraw
behaviour or asymmetry between couple types - Others have found that women demand more and men withdraw more
regardless of couple type - Regardless of gender, the person who wants change (low power) demands,
and the more powerful person (the one invested in status quo) withdraws
CYCLE OF NEGATIVITY
- First three minutes of conversation set tone
– Can be used to predict subsequent divorce with 96% accuracy
– Harsh startup: leading discussion with criticism or contempt - Unhappy, risky couples more likely to reciprocate negativity
– Negative affect reciprocity = negative emotions are met with negative
emotions
– Meet negative behaviours with defensiveness, stonewalling
ACCOMMODATION
- Even happy couples sometimes engage in negative behaviours, but are
better able to keep negativity from spiralling out of control - Accommodation = willingness to respond to destructive acts with
constructive responses - Characteristic of committed couples
- Breaks the cycle of negativity
- Often begins with the way we think about partner’s behaviour
THE ROLE OF COGNITION
- The way we behave during disagreement is important
- But so are our perceptions of partners’ behaviours
- Attributional conflict = agree on what happened, but not why it happened
– Fuelled by actor-observer difference and self-serving biases (e.g.,
minimizing self-blame, minimizing impact on victim)
“You left and stayed out late with your friends because you wanted to punish me”
Vs.
“I just wanted to clear my head” - Partners in unhappy/distressed relationships exhibit more self-serving biases,
make distress-maintaining attributions
– Negative events: internal & stable
– Positive events: external & unstable - Mindreading = one’s tendency to assume that they understand their
partner’s thoughts, feelings, & opinions without asking
– Unhappy partners tend to read unpleasant or hostile motives into neutral or
positive ones
– Attributions of harmful intent particularly detrimental - Partners in happy relationships make more positive attributions
– Negative events: external & unstable
– Positive events: internal & stable - Also engage in cognitive editing
– Respond only to constructive portions of partner’s comment & ignore the
negative - Prevents escalation & helps re-focus on the issue at hand
BREAKING THE CYCLE OF NEGATIVITY
- There are several broad patterns of behaviour that can disrupt the cycle of
negativity and facilitate more constructive discussion
– Calm down
– Listen and speak constructively and nondefensively
– Validate your partner
– Challenge your mindset
TAKING A BREAK
* Calming down is essential (helps prevent flooding, defensiveness,
stonewalling, belligerence)
* Learn to recognize when you’re feeling overwhelmed & take a time out
– Let partner know that you are not shutting them out
– DON’T spend time out rehearsing vengeful or distress-maintaining
thoughts
– DO try to reframe thoughts more positively
* E.g., “they’re super upset right now, but this isn’t a personal attack”, “I’m
upset now but we have a good relationship and I love them”
SPEAKING MORE CONSTRUCTIVELY
* Criticisms (personal attacks on partner’s character) & contempt trigger
defensiveness
* Behaviour descriptions = voice complaints by focusing on discrete, manageable
behaviours
* Avoid words like “always” and “never”
* I-statements = description of your feelings
* XYZ statements combine behaviour descriptions and I-statements
– “When you do X in situation Y, I feel Z”
* Avoid domineering (e.g., “When I want your opinion, I will let you know) and
belligerent speech (e.g., “What do you want now?”)
You’re so insensitive, you never want to see me, it’s like we’re not even in a
relationship anymore
INSTEAD:
I felt so left out when you spent the entire weekend hanging out with your
friends
ACTIVE LISTENING
* Listen in order to understand what your partner is saying (not in order to
criticize your partner)
* Don’t mindread—instead:
– Paraphrase their message to make sure you understood them correctly
– Practice perception checking to make sure you are inferring your partner’s
feelings correctly
* Even simple backchannel communications like nodding, “yeah”, ”uh-huh”, “I
see” can communicate that you are trying to understand your partner
* Avoid displaying negative nonverbal behaviour while you’re listening
VALIDATION
* Try to understand & empathize with the feelings behind your partner’s
communications
* Understanding the other’s point of view & taking it seriously does not mean you must
agree
– But such validation communicates respect & care for your partner, which deescalates the situation & promotes open, constructive dialogue
* Techniques
– Put yourself in your partner’s shoes or try taking a third-party perspective
– Take responsibility for your actions
– Avoid yes-butting when acknowledging your partner’s point of view
* “Yes, I know that upsets you” instead of “Yes, I know that upsets you but you’re
being unreasonable”
CHALLENGE YOUR MINDSET
* Instead of rehearsing thoughts related to victimhood & righteous indignation,
examine how you contribute to the negative dynamics in your relationship
* E.g., in demand-withdraw pattern
– As demander, your criticisms and attempts to control your partner are
threatening them & pushing them away
– As withdrawer, your stonewalling & turning away from the partner thwarts
their needs & leads them to escalate their demands
* Remember what you like about your partner
– Push back against tendency to rewrite history (memory bias)
* Communicate positive regard & admiration for your partner
* Instead of seeing argument as a way to retaliate or exert control over your
partner, think of a way you can improve both your outcomes
* Try to foster a sense of optimism about the problem
IMPORTANCE OF SELF-CONTROL
- Successful conflict management requires self-control
– Factors that weaken our inhibitions or strain our cognitive resources (e.g., alcohol, stress, lack of sleep) increase
irritability, decrease perspective taking, and make a destructive response more likely - John Gottman recommends scheduling a time to politely air
out grievances– Addressing issues pre-emptively when we are feeling calm
may help avoid the disastrous combo of provocation + low
self-control
CONCLUSIONS
- Conflict in interdependent relationships is inevitable
- Fighting is not necessarily destructive
– Letting resentments fester may undermine personal & relationship well-being l - We have a choice in how to respond to conflict
- When raising an issue:
– Be specific & stay focused on the issue at hand; avoid kitchen-sinking
– Avoid going negative - When partner raises an issue:
– Don’t withdraw
– Listen attentively & make an effort to understand their point of view - Communicate care & respect for partner
