Chapter 12 : Power, Influence and Violence (Unit 16) Flashcards
POWER & INFLUENCE STRATEGIES
- Power = ability to exert influence on the other partner to obtain desired
outcomes, and being able to resist their influence - Influence strategies = higher-level interpersonal approaches used to
influence the partner - Influence strategies vary along two dimensions:
– Valence (positive vs. negative)
– Use or promise of rewards vs. punishments
– Directness (direct vs. indirect)
– Overt, visible, unambiguous vs. more subtle
NEGATIVE DIRECT
* Coercion
– Criticism, blame
– Indicate negative consequences, threaten punishment
– Express negative affect
– Yelling, cursing
* Autocracy
– Make clear demands from a position of authority
– Exert superiority, invalidate partner
– Patronizing, sarcasm, condescending, interrupt, reject partner’s arguments
NEGATIVE INDIRECT
* Manipulation
– Attempt to make partner feel guilty
(e.g., remind of past favours or partner
transgressions, appeal to obligations,
commitments, or fairness)
– Appeal to partner’s love & concern
(e.g., “Don’t you love me?”)
* Negative affect without explanation
– Silent treatment, sulking, pouting
POSITIVE DIRECT
* Use logic and rational reasoning
– E.g., suggest solutions, assess consequences, weigh
pros and cons
– Explain behaviour or point of view in a way the
partner would find reasonable
POSITIVE INDIRECT
* “Soft” positive
– “Soften” persuasion attempts pointing out good characteristics of partner,
minimizing problem (e.g., “It’s not THAT big a deal, but I would appreciate it
if…”)
– Encourage partner to express point of view & feelings about the situation
– Be open to, acknowledge, & validate partner’s views
– Be charming & express positive affect (e.g., non-snarky humour)
- The influence strategies we use affect our relationships
- In general, do not like it when partners try to change us (partner regulation
attempts)
– Communicates that we are not living up to partner’s ideal - But how this is done matters
– Negative influence strategies can convey contempt & disregard, escalate
conflict, lead to more negative evaluations of relationship quality - Particularly detrimental when facing minor problems
– Positive influence strategies can offset negative effects of regulation behaviour,
convey care and regard
SIX BASES OF POWER
- Social power theory = six bases (sources) of power
- Reward power = target perceives that agent has ability to provide the target
with desired rewards if the target adopts certain beliefs, attitudes, or
behaviours that the agent desires
– Often associated with use of positive reinforcement - Coercive power = target perceives that the agent has the power to punish
them for doing something the agent doesn’t like, or not doing something the
agent wants
– E.g., threats of punishment - Legitimate power = target perceives that
agent has the right to affect the target, who
must then comply with the agent’s request
– Influenced by social norms—e.g., norm of
social responsibility (obligated to help
those who cannot help themselves), norm
of reciprocity (do unto others as they have
done unto us) - Referent power = target wants to emulate
agent, who is someone they admire greatly - Expert power = target perceives that agent
has ability to provide them with valuable
knowledge (in broad sense) - Informational power = target perceives
that agent has specific information that
may be useful to target but target must
cooperate with the agent to get it
INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY
- In an interdependent relationship, depend on each other for outcomes
– Means that partners have power over each
– Exercise different amounts of power in different domains - Principle of lesser interest = the partner who is less dependent on the
relationship, who desires it less, has more power in that relationship - Recall that dependence = outcomes – Clalt
– Thus, partners who have better alternatives to current relationship have greater
power - Likely to eventually leave the relationship unless partner can provide them
with special outcomes - Two types of power when making joint decision
1- Fate control = one partner totally determines outcomes of the other partner
– Can draw on any of the six bases of power
2- Behaviour control = one partner can make it more rewarding for the other
partner to change their behavioural choices
– Usually draw on reward power
– Happy couples more likely to rely on behaviour control rather than fate
control - Partners may use different strategies to increase their power
– Increase quality of own alternatives
– Decrease apparent quality of partner’s alternatives
– Improving value of rewards they can bestow on the partner
– Reducing partner’s perceived qualities & skills (to make them feel more
dependent on the rewards that influencer can provide)
– Devaluing what the partner can offer to oneself
RELATIONAL CONSEQUENCES OF
POWER IMBALANCES
- Relationships with high imbalance
in power tend to be characterized
by lower satisfaction, less stability, &
greater conflict - Power affects our emotional
experience and the way we relate to
others
APPROACH/INHIBITION
THEORY OF POWER
- Two behavioural systems that help us navigate our world
– The behavioural approach system moves us toward desired outcomes
(green light: “go, go, go!”) - Triggered by the presence of rewards & opportunities
– The behavioural inhibition (or avoidance) system moves us away from
threats (yellow light: “slow down, be vigilant”) - Triggered by punishment, threat, & uncertainty (“yellow” signal)
- Power influences balance of the tendencies to approach and inhibit
– Power is associated with with greater access to rewards, freedom of
interference
– Thus, elevated power activates approach-related tendencies
–— More focused on seeking rewards without any care for constraints
– Lack of power elicits feelings of threat
– Thus, lack of power is associated with increased inhibition
–– More vigilant & careful in making judgments & decisions
PERSPECTIVE TAKING
* Theory predicts that power will decrease perspective taking
– Do not need to rely on accurate understanding of others to accomplish
goals
* Experimental study:
– Participants primed to feel more or less powerful
– Recall an incident where you had power over others vs. recall an incident
where others had power over you
– Draw an “E” on your forehead
Results:
* Participants primed to feel powerful less likely to take differences in visual
perspective into account
* In other studies:
– Less accurate in decoding emotional expressions
– Less likely to take into account that others do not possess their privileged
knowledge
- Approach/inhibition theory of power further predicts that power
should make people behave in less constrained and at times more
inappropriate ways
– E.g., upper class individuals more likely break the law while driving - Partners who perceive themselves as more committed to relationship
more likely to refrain from hostile behaviour during conflict
discussions, less likely to retaliate - The more powerful partner in relationship more likely to be
aggressive - But partners who have low power & desire more power may engage
in coercive controlling tactics (especially when they are men)
DOES POWER ALWAYS CORRUPT?
- Experiment
– Measured extent to which Ps were
communally-oriented or exchange-oriented
– Manipulated power by having Ps sit in fancy
professor chair or plain chair
– Following power manipulation, asked to
complete series of questionnaires with another
participant - Results
– High-power condition: communally-oriented Ps
performed most of the task while exchange-oriented Ps shirked work
– Low-power condition: no effect of communal vs.
exchange orientation - Experimenters’ conclusion: power doesn’t corrupt,
it reveals
ROLE OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
- Participants who perceived they were less committed than their partners
more likely to engage in hostile behaviours during conflict discussions IF they
were experiencing more negative emotions or were higher on negative
interpersonal traits
– High trait anger, chronic jealousy, low agreeableness - Power disinhibits (for better or for worse)
- Lack of power inhibits
- But may seek to restore power through destructive means
AGGRESSION & VIOLENCE
- Aggression: physical or verbal behaviour intended to harm a person who does
not want to be harmed
– Violence is a term sometimes but not consistently reserved for acts intended to
cause extreme physical harm (e.g., severe injury or death) - Will use terms interchangeably (as in the textbook)
- Aggressive/violent acts may range from pushing to inflicting grievous bodily harm
- Important to distinguish between three types of violence that vary in kind:
– Situational couple violence, coercive controlling violence, violent resistance
SITUATIONAL COUPLE VIOLENCE
SITUATIONAL COUPLE VIOLENCE
* Situational couple violence = stems from angry verbal exchange that
escalate to physical altercation, in the absence of general intent by either
partner to dominate and control the other
– Often (but not always) characterized by milder forms of aggression (e.g.,
pushing, grabbing)
– Women as likely as men to engage in this kind of violence
* Severity of injuries inflicted by men is higher
– Often mutual, with both partners involved
– Reactive form of violence: reflects frustration & hostility evoked by
argument
- More a product of couple
dynamics & influenced by
situational factors
– May engage in SCV in one
relationship but not another
– Strongest predictor of violence is
receiving violence
— Negative reciprocity as with
verbal conflict
COERCIVE CONTROLLING VIOLENCE
COERCIVE CONTROLLING VIOLENCE
* Coercive controlling violence = a form a domestic violence in which one
partner uses extreme forms of aggression to dominate the other
– Also referred to as intimate terrorism or battery
– More likely to be perpetrated by men
– Proactive form of violence: reflects systematic & sustained strategy to
intimidate and control another person
– More likely to be one-sided, pervasive in a relationship, & escalate over time
– More likely to result in severe injuries, attempted murder, and death
CHARACTERISTICS & WARNING SIGNS
Feelings of fear and confusion
* E.g., avoid certain topics out of fear of angering partner, feel emotionally numb or
helpless
Invalidation & belittling (emotional abuse, minimizing behaviour)
* E.g., perpetrator humiliates & insults the other, blames the partner for own abuse
Attempts at control (isolation, economic abuse)
* E.g., excessive jealousy & possessiveness, keeps partner from seeing friends & family, limits access to money, car, etc.
Threats (intimidation) & aggression
* Volatile & unpredictable temper, aggression, threats of killing self or partner
CYCLE OF COERCIVE CONTROLLING
VIOLENCE
Tension-building phase
* Hostility erupts in angry outbursts, often a response to jealousy & desire for
control
Explosive, acute battering phase
* Tension unleashed in act of rage & aggression, often in the context of
disagreement or frustrating moment
Contrition phase
* Perpetrator apologizes, promises to change, tries to convince victim that
abuse will never happen again (then cycle restarts)
INTIMATE TERRORISM: PERPETRATORS
* While situational couple violence is often a product of destructive couple dynamics
that can be addressed in couples therapy, coercive controlling violence is
more of a pervasive individual problem
* More likely to be diagnosed with psychological disorders—especially
antisocial or borderline personality disorder
– Antisocial personality disorder = lack of regard for others, laws, & social
norms; impulsivity & lack of control over anger
– Borderline personality disorder = intense fear of rejection & abandonment,
emotional instability & difficulty regulating emotions, impulsivity
* Common characteristics:
– Insecurity, hypersensitivity to rejection, jealousy
– Easily provoked to anger
– More violent & more likely to see violence as justifiable
– Traditional gender attitudes
– Narcissism (inflated or unstable sense of self-esteem, sensitivity to ego threat &
proneness to respond with aggression)
– More likely to abuse drugs and alcohol
– Experiences of aggression and violence in family of origin
— Hostility & emotional insensitivity, exposure to conflict between parents, harsh
discipline
COPING WITH INTIMATE TERRORISM
* Contrary to popular belief, battered women make efforts to stop abuse
* Must understand intimate terrorism & response thereto in the context of an
ongoing committed romantic relationship
– Not a single response but an unfolding process of growing recognition &
development of coping strategies
* May confront partner, attempt to reason with them, change own behaviour to
avoid triggers
* Majority (70%) seek help from policy, counselors, medical personnel
VIOLENT RESISTANCE
- Violent resistance = occurs when a partner forcibly fights back against
intimate terrorism - Women who defend themselves twice as likely to sustain injury
– Thus, attempts at violent resistance may be short-lived
LEAVING COERCIVE RELATIONSHIPS
- Longitudinal study: 43% of women facing intimate terrorism left within 2.5 years
- Escaping safely may take time
– May make multiple attempts - Entrapment due to psychological & economic abuse, isolation, fear of even
greater violence & retaliation - May be deterred by continuing attachment & commitment to partner, emotional
& economic dependence - Common belief that they will be worse off
– BUT: people are happier after leaving abusive partner than they expect
ATTACHMENT & ANGER
- Anger strong predictor of interpersonal violence
- Attachment perspective:
– Anger is a functional response to separation from an attachment figure if it
deters unreliable attachment figure from leaving & re-establishes warm
relations (anger of hope)
– But intense, destructive, vengeful anger has potential to destroy
relationship
ATTACHMENT ANXIETY & ANGER
* Attachment anxiety can lead to high levels of relational anger
– React with anger & hostility to ambiguous cues
– More likely to ruminate on anger-provoking thoughts, less effective emotion
regulation
– More emotional spreading (activation of one negative emotion leads to
action of other negatively valenced but unrelated emotions)
ATTACHMENT AVOIDANCE & ANGER
* Dissociated anger: do not always report high levels of anger in response to
anger-eliciting events, but exhibit more physiological signs of anger arousal,
greater hostility, appraise others’ negative behaviours as having hostile intent
* Rely on distancing strategies to cope with anger
– May discourage outright aggression, but avoidants can become violent
when involved in intense negative reciprocity & demand-withdrawal
dynamics (most likely with anxiously attached partner)
— Anxious individuals may use violence to gain attention & proximity,
avoidants to create distance
I3 MODEL
- I3 model = SCV influenced by 3 factors
– Instigating triggers = events that arouse anger (e.g., betrayal, insults)
– Impelling influences = factors that make it more likely one will experience
violent impulses when provoked (e.g., family history of violence, impulsivity,
attachment insecurity, alcohol or drugs)
– Inhibiting influences = factors that counteract aggressive impulses (e.g.,
good problem solving skills, commitment & accommodation)
VIOLENCE IN SEXUAL MINORITY
COUPLES
- While some studies have found comparable rates of violence in same-sex and
straight couples, others suggest greater risk of victimization for gay & lesbian
individuals - Highest rates of victimization observed for bisexual individuals
– Related to perpetrator bi-negativity and perceived or real infidelity
– Bi-negativity relates to negative stereotypes about promiscuity - Impact of violence for sexual minorities may be compounded by lack of
supportive services, hesitancy to disclose
