Chapter 12: Power and Violence Flashcards
power in relationships today
55% of people today say their relationships are equal partnerships where both partners have about the same influence on important decisions
power in relationships in previous generations
In previous generations, men were the dominant partners in heterosexual relationships
social power
the ability to influence or change the thoughts, feelings, or behaviour of others to suit our purposes and to resist their influence on us
interdependency perspective on power
Power is based on the control of valuable resources
caveats of the interdependency perspective on power
- The person who has power doesn’t have to possess the resources; controlling access to them is enough
- One derives power from controlling a resource only if others want it
- The availability of alternative sources of desired resources is also critical
Principle of lesser interest
in any partnership, the person who has less interest in continuing and maintaining the relationship has more power in that relationship
why are men more powerful in traditional marriages?
- In traditional marriages, men may be more powerful than women because they have higher CLalts
- They may encounter large numbers of other potential partners by working outside the home
- They’re more likely to have the money to pursue other potential partners if they want
fate control
one can autocratically determine what outcomes a partner receives, thereby controlling their fate
behaviour control
when, by changing one’s behaviour, one encourages a partner to alter their actions in a desirable direction
power as a reciprocal relationship
- In almost all relationships, both partners have power over each other
- In many cases, one partner’s power over the other will be matched by the other’s counterpower, so both can get each other to do what they want some of the time
reciprocity
encourages us to do unto others as they have done unto us
social responsibility
urges us to be generous to those who depend on us
6 types of power
- reward power
- coercive power
- legitimate power
- referent power
- expert power
- informational power
resource that grants reward power
rewards
resource that grants coercive power
punishment
resource that grants legitimate power
authority, and norms of equity, reciprocity, or social responsibility
resource that grants referent power
respect and/or love
resource that grants expert power
expertise
resource that grants informational power
information
why does reward power gets people to do what you want?
you give them something they like or take away something they don’t like
why does coercive power gets people to do what you want?
you can do something to them they don’t like or take something away they do
why does legitimate power gets people to do what you want?
they recognize your authority to tell them what to do
why does referent power gets people to do what you want?
they identify with you, feeling attracted, and wanting to remain close
why does expert power gets people to do what you want?
you have the broad understanding they desire
why does informational power gets people to do what you want?
you possess some specific knowledge they desire
why do men tend to be the dominant partners in heterosexual relationships?
- Men have more relative resources than women
- Social norms support and maintain male dominance
- Equality is elusive: we’re not sure what it looks like
Universalistic resources
can be exchanged with almost anyone in a wide variety of situations, and whoever controls them has considerable freedom in deciding what to do with them
Particularistic resources
valuable in some situations but not others
influence of men vs. women
Women have more influence at home, but men have more influence when it matters
inequality in heterosexual couples today
Most heterosexual couples still tolerate substantial inequality
coercive power and gender
- Men tend to have more coercive power due to their larger size and greater strengthen
- However, coercion is an ineffective way to influence an intimate partner
what differentiates powerful and nonpowerful people?
- Powerful people experience a lot of positive moods and feelings of well-being and feel in control of things
- Powerful people are less good at taking other people’s perspectives
- Powerful people are more likely to cheat on their partners while being more strict at condemning other’s cheating. They judge other’s moral transgressions more harshly than their own
- Powerless people suffer more depression, behave more cautiously, and timidly fear punishment more than powerful people do
power dynamics in same-sex conversations
Women and men behave similarly when talking to members of the same se
power dynamics in opposite-sex conversations
- Women tend not to speak to men with the same implicit strength and power that they display toward other women
- Men interrupt women more than women interrupt men
Men speak more than women
nonverbal behaviour and power
- Powerful people use larger interpersonal distances, look at others longer, assume less symmetrical postures, and take up more space than less powerful people
- These behaviours tend to be more masculine
- When people feel more powerful, their testosterone levels rise and they take bolder risks in a gambling game
nonverbal sensitivity and power
- Powerful people recognize emotion in others’ voices and facial expressions less accurately than people with lower power do
- This allows them to gain valuable information and increase their limited power
two themes of styles of power
- Direct vs. indirect
- Bilateral (involving both partners) vs. unilateral (independent)
men’s style of power
- Heterosexual men tend to use direct and bilateral styles
- More characteristic of those who are satisfied and powerful
women’s style of power
- Heterosexual women tend to use indirect and unilateral styles
- More characteristic of those who are unsatisfied and powerless
direct strategies in women nowadays
- More recent studies show that women use direct strategies just as often as men do
- Each new generation of women is higher in instrumentality than the one before (more direct)
direct vs. indirect requests to use a condom
Softer, more indirect requests to use a condom are more likely to be ignored, particularly when people are intoxicated
pecreptions of men vs. women in situations of power
Male autonomy and female conformity are seen as natural by many
the outcome of power
- Disparities in power are linked to lower satisfaction in close relationships
- Women are a lot happier when they’re as powerful as their husbands, and their husbands are a little happier too
the two faces of power
- Power does not need to be a corrosive force in relationships
- Happy lovers often use influence to benefit their partners and enhance their mutual contentment
- However, some actively seek to be the top dogs in their relationships, which can lead to violence
violence
behaving in a manner that is intended to do physical harm to others
prevalence of violence in relationships
- Almost ⅓ of women and 1/7 of men in the U.S. have encountered severe physical violence in relationships
- The highest rates of victimization occur in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, where 37% of women were assaulted by a domestic partner
- When a couple has a history of angry disputes, rates of violence are higher
prevalence of psychological aggression
- Psychological aggression occurs at one time or another in most relationships
- It is associated with lower marital satisfaction and personal well-being
- Verbal aggression is less worrisome to most of us than physical violence
types of couple violence
- Situational couple violence (SCV)
- Intimate terrorism (IT)
- Violent resistance
Situational couple violence (SCV)
- Occurs when both partners are angry and is tied to specific arguments, so it is only occasional and is usually mild and mutual
- Equally common in men and women
Intimate terrorism (IT)
- One partner uses violence as a tool to control and oppress the other. It is more likely to be one-sided, to escalate over time, and to involve serious injury to its target
- More common in men
violent resistance
- A partner forcibly fights back against intimate terrorism. Occurs in some, but not all cases of IT, so it is the least common type
- More common in women
facets of intimate terrorism
- isolation
- intimidation
- economic abuse
- emotional abuse
- minimizing
isolation
controlling where she goes, what she does, whom she sees
intimidation
threatnening, destroying her property, abusing pets
economic abuse
taking her money, preventing her employment
emotional abuse
humiliating, disregarding, and blaming
minimizing
denying any abuse
gender differences in intimate violence
- Women direct just as much or even more physical violence at their partners than men do
- Women tend to display less severe physical violence while men display more severe violence
- When couple violence occurs, more severe injuries are suffered by women
mate-guarding
working to regulate and control our partner’s access to potential rivals
evolutionary perspective of mate-guarding
Makes sense from an evolutionary perspective because we want our partners to be faithful to us
posessiveness vs. violence
If a partner’s possessiveness turns surly, violence may not be far behind
I-cubed model
- Organizes influences on SCV into instigating triggers, impelling influences, and inhibiting influences
- Argues that we refrain from violence because the impelling influences were too weak or the inhibiting forces were too strong
Instigating triggers
cause one or both partners to be on edge
Impelling impulses
make it more likely that the partners will experience violent impulses
Inhibiting impulses
encourage the partners to refrain from acting on violent impulses
classifying impelling and inhibitory influences
Impelling and inhibitory influences can be distal, dispositional, relational, or situational
distal
influences emerge from one’s background
dispositional
personality traits and long-standing beliefs
relational
involve the current state of the couple’s relationship
situational
involve the immediate circumstances
examples of instigating triggers
- Jealousy-evoking events, remembered or discovered betrayals, real or imagined rejection
- Verbal or physical abuse from one’s partner
examples of impelling influences
- People who witnessed violence between their parents, were abused as children, or consumed a lot of aggressive media
- Mean, impulsive character traits
- High in anxiety about abandonment or avoidance of intimacy
- Men with traditional, sex-typed gender roles and those with attitudes that condone the use of force
- Poor communication skills and mismatched attachment styles
- Recent stress at work
- Hot, noisy, uncomfortable environment
examples of inhibiting influences
- Cultures that promote gender equality and are enjoying economic prosperity
- Conscientiousness
- Disposition for self-control
- Good problem-solving skills
Commitment
reoccurence of ipv
Once violence starts in a particular relationship, it is likely to reoccur
explaining intimate terrorism
- Also explained by the I-cubed model
- Rooted in more enduring influences than SCV
2 types of intimate terrorism
- Threats of harm are their efforts to keep partners from leaving
- Use violence as a tool to get what they want
preexisting characteristics of intimate terrorists
Men who are intimate terrorists have often witnessed violent conflict between their parents, been sexually abused, grown up in homes that taught them traditional gender roles, think of women as adversaries to be used for pleasure, and are more abusive in general
reasons for IT
Intimate terrorists tend to be poor, feel intellectually inferior, and have low self-esteem
IT as a vicious cycle
Intimate aggression can be transmitted intergenerationally, but it doesn’t have to be
rationales for IT
- Perpetrators of IT feel that their behaviour is a legitimate response to their partner’s provocation
- They believe men are supposed to be dominant and are entitled to use violence
- Most don’t believe they are “real wife abusers” because they don’t enjoy hurting women and have limited their level of abuse
- Only about ½ of the men expressed remorse
women’s reactions to IT
- Women are ordinarily surprised when they encounter IPV and struggle to make sense of it
- They are influenced by notions that encourage them to “forgive and forget”
- They sometimes blame themselves for their partner’s aggression and remain silent
- Sometimes, they minimize their partner’s behaviour, thinking it will change
psychological consequences of IT
Psychological consequences of IT include low self-esteem, mistrust of men, depression, and PTSD
social consequences of IT
Battered women are often absent from work and may become homeless when violence forces them to flee their homes
stalking
repeated, malicious following and harassing of an unwilling target
reasons for stalking
- About half of stalkers are people pursuing ex-partners after the end of a romantic relationship
- Stalkers may also be mentally unstable or lonely
- They often wrongly believe that their victims are interested in them
why don’t all victims of IPV leave?
- ⅓ of women stay in abusive partnerships for an extended period
- Despite their abuse, maybe women don’t think they’ll be better off if they go. This is usually wrong
- Some people don’t want to go because they’re drawn to possessive and controlling men
