CHAPTER 5

Question 1

Chapter 5 - Conflict Styles

Answer 1

• style preferences develop over a person’s lifetime based on a complicated blend of personal characteristics, life experiences, and family background.
• by the time you are an adult, your basic orientation to conflicts in particular contexts is in place. your preferences for either harmony and calm or high-energy engagement are apparent. for instance, with your siblings you may engage them in spirited convos over the dinner table. or you might avoid any direct talk about difficult issues with them. in most relationships, we often develop repetitive conflict styles.
• developing a repertoire of diverse styles may stretch you out of your comfort zone. however, having a choice of styles will enhance your chances for productive conflict.

Question 2

The Nature of Styles

Answer 2

• conflict styles are patterned responses, or clusters of behavior that ppl use in conflict. when you use a com. choice numerous times, it becomes a style- a patterned response.
• we use the Rahim classification of five conflict styles throughout this chapter. the five styles are obliging (accommodating), avoiding, integrating (collaborating), dominating (competing), and compromising.
• notice that the avoidance represents low concern for the self and low concern for the other.
• obliging, commonly called accommodation, represents a low level of concern for self but a high level of concern for the other (you give them what they want)
• the opposite of obliging is dominating- you are highly concerned for yourself but have only a low level of concern for the other (you go for it regardless of the desires of the other)
• integration factors in both your concerns and the other’s concerns.
• compromise is the middle ground, where there are moderate degrees of concern both for yourself and the other.

Question 3

Will You Avoid or Engage?

Answer 3

• before we examine the five styles in depth, we look at our most fundamental orientation to conflict - avoidance or engagement
• the scores for integrating, compromising and dominating flow from engaging the other, whereas scores fro obliging and avoiding reflect avoidance.
• people who have experienced trauma whether it has been physical violence, sex abuse, observing violent events, etc - traumatized ppl tend to avoid conflict.
• on the other hand, those who come from a family where loud arguments are the norm, find engaging with others as a natural choice.
• Brent wants to engage in the conflict and his girl wants to protect herself by avoiding it. each time an issue surfaces, they will have to reach an agreement on avoidance/engagement, or this metaconflict will override any other emerging issues. their fundamental issue is “how much conflict am I willing to risk to get what I want?”
• of course, during the next conflict on a dif. topic, she may push for engagement and he may avoid, but usually people in a relationship specialize in one approach or the other. this overriding preference limits their ability to resolve conflict well.
• both avoidance and engagement are workable options in different circumstances. recall the couple struggling over their level of engagement. the woman’s avoidance may have prompted the man to examine his reaction, decide that he was too reactive in social situations and back off to reduce the conflict. or her avoidance may have signaled to him that she did not care for his feelings and that he should start exiting the relationship. avoidance and lack of overt conflict may indicate that the p’s are unable to reach agreement and that they will gradually drift apart.
• avoidance of conflict often leads to a cycle that is self-perpetuating. her is a type pattern that occurs when one avoids conflict:
• we think of conflict as bad
• we get nervous about a conflict we are experiencing
• we avoid the conflict as long as possible
• the conflict gets out of control and must be confronted
• we handle it badly

Question 4

Will You Avoid or Engage?

continued

Answer 4

• whenever the conflict is one that is remotely serious, it gets dodged. rather than stay and confront a problem, and heaven forbid hurt someone’s feelings, I run like mad. I find myself becoming a snail, silent in my shell - description of avoidance
• avoidance is designed to protect the self and other from discord and to preserve a relationship, yet the avoidance may lead to lack of clarity, set the stage for later uncontrollable conflict and lead back to even more avoidance.
• there are times when avoidance is productive for a relationship. it serves as a defense against engagement, or confrontation with the partner or coworker. spouses who practice avoidance within a bond of mutual affection often describe their marriage as happy. furthermore, if the relationship is not important to you, avoidance can conserve energy that would be expended needlessly. similarly, if an issue is trivial to you, your easiest choice may be avoidance. in the workplace, you may have a supervisor who dislikes any conflict so avoiding touchy topics may be a wise choice for you

Question 5

Avoidance

Answer 5

• avoidance is characterized by denial of the conflict, changing and avoiding topics, being noncommittal, and joking rather than dealing with the conflict at hand.
• the avoidance may sidestep an issue by changing the topic or simply withdrawing from dealing with the issue. just as use of the competitive or dominating style does not mean that one will get what one wants (bc of the interdependence with the other party), the use of avoidance as a style does not mean that the avoider will be ineffective. ex., if a person is having a conflict with a large org., the org can enhance its position by not responding to correspondent on the matter. by pretending that the conflict does not exist, the high-power party is freed from dealing with the low-power party.
• avoidance can serve similar functions in interpersonal conflicts. if two roommates are both dating the same woman, they may refuse to discuss the subject openly, even if both of them are aware of the issue. further, if a couple is having a hard time dealing with each other’s families, they may not feel free to discuss the issue. avoiding a conflict, however, does not prevent it.
• conflict occurs when parties have the perception of incompatible goals, regardless of the styles they choose to use in responding to this perception.
• avoidance is simply an alternative mode of conflict expression. some of the advantages and disadvantages follow:
• advantages: can supply time to think of some other response to conflict, as some ppl cannot think on their feet. it’s useful if the issue is trivial or if other important issues demand one’s attention. if the relationship itself is unimportant to one person or if others can manage the conflict without his or her involvement, avoidance is a wise choice. avoidance can also keep one from harm if he or she is in a relationship in which anything other than avoidance will bring a negative response o the other party. if one’s goal is to keep the other party from influencing him or her, then avoidance helps accomplish that goal.
• disadvantages: it may signal to others that you do not care enough to confront them. it also gives the impression that you cannot change. it allows conflict to simmer and heat up unnecessarily rather than providing an avenue for reducing it. it keeps one from working through a conflict and reinforces the notion that conflict is terrible and best avoided. it allows partners each to follow his or her own course and pretend there is no mutual influence when, in fact, each influences the other. it usually preserves the conflict and sets the stage for a later explosion or backlash

Question 6

Avoidance

continued

Answer 6

• in marriages, avoidance of conflict relates to lower satisfaction in general. be aware that stonewalling and avoidance are different approaches-stonewalling is a hostile tactic. in one study, partners who believes in their first year of marriage that conflicts should be avoided also reported lower levels of happiness in the first three yrs of marriage than those who believes that conflict should NOT be avoided.
• in some traditional marriages, however, stability and predictability are emphasized and continual renegotiation of what the spouses expect of one another is not useful.
• satisfied couples used conflict avoidance to a greater extent than dissatisfied couples. similarly, for couples who are not traditional and who lead somewhat independent lives, avoidance may be a satisfying style of communication.
• avoidance can cycle back and affect the one that is avoiding. studies show that a lot of avoidance tends to result in health problems and affects well-being.
• older couples in our culture who avoid conflict can often be characterized as happy, although inexpressive.
• avoidance can be useful and appropriate when (1) open communication is not an integral party of the system (family or organization); (2) one does not want to invest energy to work through the conflict to reach agreement with the other-he or she wants to stay at arm’s length and not get close; (3) the cost of confrontation is too high; (4) one simply hasn’t learned how to engage in collaborative conflict management.

Question 7

Avoidance:

Avoidance and Culture

Answer 7

• whether avoidance is productive or destructive depends on the cultural contexts. ppl within diverse cultures often have different reasons for avoiding.
• in one study comparing American and Chinese ppl, three different reasons emerged for avoiding: (1) protecting the avoider from harm, (2) maintaining positive mood, (3) for spiritual or philosophical reasons.
• there are differences across different collectivist cultures on avoidance. on study compared Chinese, Korean, and Japanese employees and found that the Japanese were more likely to avoid. the Japanese avoid conflict in order to preserve congeniality and consensus and out of sensitivity to others’ feelings. in Japan, when one avoids, the implicit social hierarchy is reinforced-so avoidance makes sure the social bonds are not disrupted.
• in such collectivist cultures, if you avoid a conflict, others will talk to you about how to heal wounds, make amends, and solve the conflict in indirect ways. in individualistic cultures, like the US, if you avoid someone as the result of a conflict, your friends might cheer you on and say you don’t have to take that junk and make other escalatory expressions. depending on the culture, those around you push you either to reconciliation or into continued fighting. in collectivist cultures, one is more concerned with the group needs, goals and interests than with individualistic-oriented interests. thus avoidance serves different functions in collectivist cultures than in individualistic ones.
• in collectivist cultures, avoidance represents “indirect working through” and in individualistic cultures, avoidance represents “indirect escalation”

Question 8

Avoidance:

The Avoidance/Criticize Loop

Answer 8

• when Mira says “I can’t talk to him, he is just so uncaring” she is both avoiding and criticizing
• in the avoid/criticize loop, you avoid bringing up an issue to people directly and spend time talking about them to others. Viola owned a mountain cabin in Wyoming. each of the cabin owners had horses and there was a general caretaker who took care of the horses. each summer as Viola returned to live there for two months, she would stand on the front porch and say can you believe that Mike -the caretaker, parks those hose trailers out there? they are in plain sight and really ugly, he should move them. we asked by her son bill mom have you ever asked mike to move them she said no i shouldn’t have to ask him; he should know they are ugly and need moving. the son, wanting to see her get some relief from the negative energy of criticism said well mom, he doesn’t know what you are thinking and i bet if you make a direct request there’s a good chance he will move them. her response was if he were a good caretaker, he would know what i want. thus, the self-sealing avoid/criticize loop was kept in motion summer after summer. the horse trailers are still being parked there.
• the avoid/criticize loop is quite common professional circles and the business world. one talks about others, but doesn’t join with them f2f and solve the issue. especially if you are good at yo job, you can really get invovled in criticizing others-he doesn’t understand the new initiative, she hasn’t the training to see this accurately. he is just so negative i can’t stand to be in a meeting with him. critical statements substitute for a constructive request. we make the other wrong, yet do not give them a chance to correct. we avoid and continue the criticism.

Question 9

Avoidance:

Avoiding

Answer 9

• avoidance comes in m any forms. here are just some of the ways one can avoid a conflict:
• not speaking and remaining quiet
  refusing to answer or talk saying “I don’t have an opinion” or “whatever you think is fine with me” or “we will not have that discussion in this house”
• deflecting or changing the topic such as saying what do you think about this storm forecast? or I don’t want to talk about it
• talking in abstract terms (when someone is attacking your lack of commitment, saying what do you think about the social exchange theory’s weaknesses?)
• leave the scene-to physically exit a situation
• joking. making a joke that diffuses the anger, changes the topic or alters the mood to impact the conflict
• smiling or laughing to change the mood
• asking questions-gee john tell me again what was it liking growing up in Iowa?
• supplying conflict irrelevant information
• avoidance of the topic is, however, different from postponement. in the first example Gloria uses avoidance, in the second she uses postponement.

1. Gloria is upset and wants to talk to her husband late at night. he has an appointment at eight am in the morning
   - Gloria: I’m so upset that I can’t sleep. whatever possessed you to talk about our summer plans to the Carters at the party? you know we have been trying to get free of doing things with them. you said last week-
   - Sam: can’t we talk about this in the morning?
   - Gloria: it’s fine for you to say that. you don’t have to deal with Sandra when she calls tomorrow to decide where we will take our families for a joint vacation. I have to talk to her and tell her that we have changed our minds.
   - Sam: I am sorry I brought it up but I’m sleepy and I don’t want to talk about it
   - at this point, the avoidance tactic sam is using - maybe if I close my eye all this hassle will go away is not productive. his twin goals-to get some sleep and to avoid further antagonizing his wife-are not likely to be met. by this time Gloria is probably angry not only about his lack of discretion at the party but also about his refusal to talk about it.
2. an example of productive postponement follows:
   - Sam: I know that you are upset I also feel foolish but I am exhausted and I really don’t want to deal with this issue now. When she calls tomorrow tell her we haven’t had a chance to talk yet and you’ll call her back. Then when I come home from work tomorrow we will discuss the whole thing
   - Gloria: you always say that and we never talk
   - Sam: this time we will. we will sit down before dinner, banish the kids and the two of us will talk i know you are upset
   - Gloria: Okay if we really will. i know it’s hard to know what to say in public like that. they presume so much…

Question 10

Avoidance:

Avoiding

Answer 10

• postponement as a tactic works best when several conditions are present. first of all, the emotional content of the conflict needs to be acknowledge while other issues are deferred to a later time. sam said “i know that you’re upset” acknowledging the depth of Gloria’s feelings. she would not probably go along with the postponement i he had said it’s stupid for you to be upset. we’ll work it out later. after the emotional content is acknowledge, all parties have to agree on a time that is soon and realistic. if same had said we will talk about it sometime soon, that would not have been precise enough. the other party has to believe that the postponer really means to bring up the issue later on. postponement does not work well as a tactic if the other people invovled think they are being put off, never to return to the issue.
• vague statements such as we will have to work on that sometime or let’s all try harder to get along are often giveaways that the person wants avoidance rather than postponement.
• although avoidance comes in many costumes, its function is always to deflect, avoid, and not engage in the conflict. whether a professor who is confronted about a grade says that’s an interesting point it brings up an interesting question (abstract remark) or a supervisor says that’s enough complaining, let’s get back to the job (topic shift) the basic dynamic is the same-to avoid the conflict.

Question 11

Dominating

Answer 11

• a dominating, competitive, or “power over” style is characterized by aggressive and uncooperative pursuing your own concerns at the expense of another. people with dominating styles attempt to gain power by direct confrontation, by trying to “win” the argument without adjusting to the other’s goals and desires.
• a person with competitive style is one who usually thinks it necessary to engage the other participant in overt disagreement. the conflict is seen as a “battleground” where winning is the goal and concern for the other is of little or no importance. someone who adopts a competitive style in conflicts would probably agree with statements such as once i get wound up in a heated discussion, i find it difficult to stop. and i like the exciting of engaging in verbal fights.
• competitive tactics can be employed in an assertive rather than an aggressive manner. usually, however, aggression creeps into a competitive style. whereas nonassertive ppl deny themselves and inhibit their expression of feelings and open striving for goals, assertive people enhance the self, work toward achieving desired goals and are expressive.
• the aggressive person, however, carries the desire for self expression to the extreme. goals are accomplished at the expense of others. the aggressive style results in a put down of others while the aggressor actively works against their goals.
• the assertive person can be competitive without berating, ridiculing or damaging the other. the aggressive person is competitive primarily by trying to destroy the opponent’s options.
• the dominating style of managing conflict is productive if you compete to accomplish individual goals without destroying the other person. the relationship focus is maintained even while the topic is debated. competition can be productively used in conflict, especially if the p’s agrees about the amount of aggressiveness that can legitimately be used in their conflict.

Question 12

Dominating

continued

Answer 12

• a dominating style is useful to show the other party how important an issue is to you. especially when both parties agree that a competitive style is the norm, the style can be useful. competitiveness can be a sign of strength or commitment. for example, two lawyers who one up each other during negotiation are each attempting to persuade the other to alter his or her position.
• on the other hand such dominating or competitive tactics can damage a relationship, lock the p’s into round-robin sequences of attack on each other, and deprive the p’s of cooperative solutions to their problems.
• in severe cases a dominating style can become self-encapsulating-the p’s can’t give up or stop because they get too caught up in winning at any cost. When people launch never-ending court challenges against one another or continue to verbally abuse their ex-spouses for many decades, such approaches indicate a frozen position of dominating
• the ever competitive combatants lose all perspective on the original goals and they dedicate their energies to triumphing over the other.

Question 13

Dominating:

Advantages and Disadvantages

Answer 13

• advantages: verbal domination can be appropriate and useful when one has to take quick, decisive action such as in an emergency. such verbal strength can generate creative ideas when others respond well to it or when one is in a situation in which the best performance or ideas are rewarded. it is useful if the external goal is more important than the relationship with the other person, such as in a short-term non repeating relationship. dominating also informs the other of one’s degree of commitment to the issue and can be used to demonstrate to the other party the importance of the issue. when everyone agrees that dominating behavior is a sign of strength and when the behavior is treated as a natural response, such as in games, sports, or in a court battle, the style serves good purposes. in these cases, other styles may not bring the expected closure.
• example of advantages: a human services agency competes with others for grant money from United Way. a limited amount is available, so the best proposal for solving a human services problem will be funded. the director of the agency competes with other directors for funding. the larger good of the community is served by the best program’s gaining support.
• disadvantages: dominating responses can harm the relationship between the parties bc of the focus on external goals. competition can be harmful if one party is unable or unwilling to deal with conflict in a head-on manner. conflict waged competitively can encourage one party to go underground and use covert means to make the other party pay. domination tends to reduce all conflicts to two options - either you are against me or with me. which limits one’s roles to winning or losing
• example of disadvantages: Greg and Marcie are both young competitive sales people for the same company and they live together. high sales, naturally, are rewarded by their manager. the couple keeps track of who’s ahead of the other by placing a chart on the fridge. the week’s loser has to do the laundry for the week. however, when Marcie’s sales are low bc she has been ill and has missed a lot of work, she angrily says to Greg, I’m not your slave. do your own damn laundry. their relationship and her identity suffered from the “loss”

Question 14

Dominating:

Destructive Domination

Answer 14

• dominating tactics involve being verbally competitive, striving for your individual to win. these tactics have a win/lose orientation and reflect a belief that what one person gets, the other loses. as a result, the party using competitive tactics will try to one-up the other party to gain an advantage.
• if someone personally criticizes you, rejects your statements, or acts in a verbally hostile manner (with threats, jokes or questions) you become vividly aware of the competitive nature of the exchange. confrontational remarks are at the heart of I win-you lose perspectives on conflict. just as with avoidance tactics, competitive tactics are often used in combination. a competitive approach demands that the other given in, take responsibility for the conflict, and solve it.
• most of us know that drugs and alcohol make conflict worse. we often hear stories about someone being drunk and going after the other person. research on this is quite clear-there is a definite link between substance abuse and harmful competitive tactics. alcohol especially makes conflict episodes more damaging. it is so common that we say never engage in a conflict when you or the other has been drinking.
• other drugs may have more dramatic effects. the recent surge in methamphetamine use is often correlated with violent interpersonal aggression. so if you want your conflicts to be less damaging, avoid engaging difficult issues when you or the other is under the influence of a substance.
• the dominating style often leads the other to mirror that style. often, the person who feels powerless and victimized escalates the conflict to a point, then gives up, thinking there’s nothing i can do to win anyways. in effect, the p’s cooperate in the escalation.
• a very angry person was once observed trying to take over the microphone and the floor at a convention. he shouted loudly, disrupted the proceedings, and was finally given five mins. to state his case. he did so, supporting with vehemence the pullout of his church group from a large national group, which he perceive as being too liberal. he chose the dominating style to escalate the conflict-soon he and the chairman were yelling back and forth at each other.

Question 15

Illustrations of Dominating Statements

Answer 15

• oh come on
• you’re exaggerating
• if you do that once more, you are grounded
• i am the expert here
• listen, when you are in the kitchen i am the boss
• who told you that i would care about your opinion
• you are just stupid
• i am not going to stop until I win

Question 16

Dominating:

Threats

Answer 16

• the most commonly used dominating tactic is the threat. we rush to use threats bc we believe they are effective. many parents are too quick to say do your homework or you are grounded. or in the grocery store touch those cans again and I’ll lock you in the trunk of the car. supervisors will say my way or the highway- a misguided way to build a team.
• figure 5.2 shows that a threat has to meet two criteria: the source of the threat must control the outcome and the threat must be seen as negative by the recipient.
• if you (the source) control the outcome (if you don’t go to bed in three minutes I won’t read you a story) and the sanction is seen as negative, then it is a threat.
• similarly, if the professor says if you don’t get your paper in on time, i will dock your grade. it is a threat.
• however, if the source does NOT control the outcome (a friend says if you don’t get your paper in on time, it will hurt your grade) the comment is not a threat because the friend is not the source of the outcome, the professor is. instead, this is a warning.
• many parents get confused between warnings and threats. for example, if you drink too much, you’ll never graduate seems like a threat, but it is not because the parent does not control the outcome, the school or professor does.
• if on the other hand the parent says stop partying so much or i won’t pay for your next semester. this IS a threat because the parents control the outcome of whether the next semester is paid for.
• if you say to a friend if you cheat on your boyfriend, he will leave you - you are issuing a warning because you don’t control whether or not the boyfriend leaves your friend.
• if you say I wouldn’t challenge her on that topic, you are recommending a course of action to your friend.
• small children understand the difference between a positive and a negative sanction. if the parent says if you don’t do the dishes, you’ll have to spend the evening in your room and the child has a computer or TV so going to the room is not negative and the child may retort is that a threat or a promise?
• as you can see, if the source controls the outcome and the recipient sees the outcome as positive, the threat is, instead, a promise.

Question 17

Dominating:

Threats
continued

Answer 17

• a threat is credible only if (1) the source is in a position to administer the punishment, (2) the source appears willing to invoke the punishment, and (3) the punishment is something to be avoided.
• often the other party is is able to administer a threat but not willing to follow through. a coworker who threatens to tell the boss you broke a rule may not carry out the threat if the boss dislikes whistle blowers.
• in an intimate relationship, one partner might say if you want to make your summer plans alone, go ahead. but if you do, then don’t expect to find me here when you come back. such a threat (relational suicide) is effective only if the person who makes the threat is willing to lose the other person over this issue.
• the perception that the other party is willing to carry out the threat makes it effective. as a results, intimates often avoid testing the willingness of the other party to invoke the threat and instead live under the control of the other person for years.
• in poker, a bluff is when you bet a lot but have a weak group of cards as a way to get the other people to fold and give you the winnings. the only successful bluff is one that the other party believes is true.
• finally, threats are effective only if the sanction is something the threatened party wants to avoid. one faculty member was offered a job at a competing university; when he went to the department chair and threatened to leave unless his salary was raised, the chair replied I hope you enjoy the climate down south.

Question 18

Dominating:

Threats
continued

Answer 18

• as you can see, threats can be either constructive or destructive. they can be used constructively to highlight the importance of the conflict topic to you, to get the attention of the other party and to clarify one’s perceptions of the power balance.
• on the other hand, threats tend to elicit the same behavior from the other, starting escalatory conflict spirals. they also block collaborative agreements and undermine trust in the relationship. worse, we can become enamored of them. if two dorm roommates have been getting along well except for the issue of sweeping the floor, then a threat of if you don’t sweep more often i’ll process a room change might damage the trust in an otherwise good friendship. the recipient of the threat is likely to respond with a feeling of okay then go ahead. who needs you anyways. unless trust can be regained, forging agreements will be extremely hard.
• once a threat has damaged the trust in the relationship, it often leads to further destructive tactics. threats are overused, used too quickly, destroy trust and tend to promote retaliation.
• threats present a risk in a relationship. even if a credible threat is carried out, with the resulting win-lose negative sanction, what is gained? the immediate problem may be temporarily resolved but the main goals (1) to solve the problem and (2) to preserve the relationship for work for closeness have not been met.
• the use of a threat automatically damages the second goal “preserve the relationship”

Question 19

Compromise

Answer 19

• this is an intermediate style resulting in some gains and some losses for each party. it is moderately assertive and cooperative. a compromising style is characterized by beliefs such as you can be satisfied with part of the pie and give a little and get a little.
• when compromising, parties give up some important goals to gain others. compromise is dependent on shared power bc if the other party is perceived as powerless, no compelling reason to compromise exists.
• compromise is frequently confused with integrating, which requires creative solutions and flexibility. compromise differs, however, in that it requires trade-offs and exchanges. many times ppl avoid using compromise bc something valuable has to be given up.
• while north American norms, especially in public life, encourage compromising, the style is not often the first choice is personal relationships.
• when power is unequal, compromising is usually seen as giving in or giving up.
• research has not specified compromising tactics to the degrees of specificity of avoidance and dominating, but some samples are:
• fairness - i gave in last time now it’s your turn
• split the difference - i have come up 10 k and if you would come down by a similar amount we could complete the sale
• change roles - you did it last time now it is my turn to lead
• meet in the middle - we both have to give something in order to get something. i suggest a middle ground
• temporary solution - since we don’t have time to work out all the details how about we agree on all the major points and set a time for working out the rest
• one’s view of compromise is a good litmus test of how you view conflict in general. think about he famous the cup is half empty versus the cup is half full aphorism that applies to compromise. some see compromise as both of us lose something and other see it as both of us win something.
• clearly, compromise means a middle ground btwn you and the other and involves a moderate and balanced amount of concern for self and concern for the other.
• compromises can result from good faith efforts and may be very effective solutions.
• compromise as a STYLE sometimes shortchanges the conflict process, while at other times it effectively deals with the reality that not everyone can get everything they want.

Question 20

Compromise

Advantages vs. Disadvantages

Answer 20

Advantages:

• compromise sometimes lets conflict parties accomplish important goals with less time expenditure than integrating requires. it also reinforces a power balance that can be used to achieve temporary or expedient settlements in time-pressured situations. it can be used as a backup method for decision making when the other styles fail. it also has the advantage of having external moral force; therefore, it appears reasonable for most parties. it works best when other styles have failed or a clearly unsuitable.
• Caitlin and Blake ages 8 and 10 both want to play with the new computer game they got for xmas. after arguing, the parents tell them tow work something out that is fair. they decide that if no one else is using the game they can play without asking but if they both want to play at the same time they have to either play the game together or take turns by hours. the compromise of taking turns works well as a conflict reduction device. the parents can intervene simply by asking who’s turn it is.

Disadvantages:

• it can become the easy way out- a formula solution not based on the demands of a particular situation. for some ppl, it always seems to be a form of loss rather than a win. it prevents creative new options bc it is easy and handy to use. flipping a coin or splitting the difference can be a sophisticated form of avoidance of issues that need to be discussed. these chance measures, such as drawing straws or picking a number are not really a compromise. they are arbitration, with the arbiter being chance. true compromise requires each side giving something in order to get an agreement; she is selling a bike and i pay more than i want to and she gets less than she wants for the bike.
• two friends from home decide to room together for college. Sarah wants to live in Jesse dorm with some other friends she has met. Kate wants to live in Brantley, an all-female dorm, so she can have more privacy. they decide that it wouldn’t be fair for either one to get her first choice so they compromise on Craig, where neither knows anyone. at midyear, they want to change roommates since neither is happy with the choice. Sarah and Kate might have been able to come up with a better solution if they had worked it out.

Question 21

Obliging (Accommodating)

Answer 21

• the term obliging is the same as accommodation. the dictionary defines obliging as a willing to do a service or kindness; helpful.
• you oblige or you you accommodate to the other’s needs. one who practices obliging does not assert individual needs but prefers a cooperative and harmonizing approach.
• the individual sets aside his or her needs or concerns in favor of pleasing the other people invovled (this relational goal may be the most important goal for the accommodating person)
• one may gladly yield to someone else or may do so grudgingly or bitterly. the accompanying emotion can differ from those using obliging, from gentle pleasure at smoothing ruffled feelings to angry, hostile compliance. the accommodating person may think that he or she is serving the good of the group, family or team by giving in, sacrificing or stepping aside. sometimes this is true; other times, the accommodator could better serve the needs of the larger group by staying engaged longer and using a more assertive style.
• sometimes ppl who habitually use this style play the role of the martyr, bitter complainer, whiner or saboteur. they may yield in a passive way or concede.
• obliging is one of the most common responses to conflict between people, but it is often the least noticed. one of the reasons is that when someone accommodates, you may not even be aware of it. if you say “i want to go sledding” and your brother says “whatever” obliging has occurred. if it were more overt, like competitive moves, it would be easier to see. as a result, few communication studies look intensely at obliging-they just don’t see it.
• if you automatically agree with everything your romantic partner suggests, it is usually such a patterned response that you don’t even realize that you are obliging him or her. in a traditional marriage, if the husband comes home for dinner and says how about turkey tonight an accommodating wife will say okay, i bet i have some frozen we can thaw out and i can make some gravy. while she was planning on beef, she automatically adjust to his preferences and accommodates.
• obliging may be linked to codependence. in codependent relationships, what one person does, thinks or feels is dependent on what someone else does, thinks or feels. codependent relationships often result from a person grouping up in an alcoholic or abusive family. the extreme escalation of the alcoholic or abusive person causes the spouse or child to become hypervigilant, to turn in with exquisite attention to the moods, needs, feelings and predicted behavior of a powerful other.
• ultimately, the vigilant person does not know what he or she thinks, feels or needs except to feel safe. one of the hardest q’s a counselor to ask many women and some men is what are you feeling. for the person has lived with a system of obliging or codependence, the answer is usually i don’t know.
• obliging responses are often seen as being kind, being responsive to the partner, or as promoting calm certainly it is true that not every issues needs to be addresses, and obliging can be a kind and helpful party of anyone’s repertoire. on the other hand, obliging can reflect a position of I have no choice. that power imbalance, as we discovered, harms ongoing relationships. as we become more sensitized to obliging moves, we should be able to expand our understanding of them and their role in conflict events.

Question 22

Obliging

Advantages vs. Disadvantages

Answer 22

Advantages:
- when one finds that he or she is wrong, it can be best to accommodate the other to demonstrate reasonableness. if an issue is important to one person and not important to another, the latter can give a little to gain a lot. in addition, obliging can prevent one party from harming the other-one can minimize the losses when he or she will probably lose anyways.if harmony or maintenance of the relationship is currently the most crucial goal, obliging allows the relationship to continue without overt conflict. obliging to a senior or seasoned person can be a way of managing conflict by betting on the most experienced person’s judgment.

Disadvantages:
- obliging can foster an undertone of competitiveness if ppl develop a pattern of showing each other how nice they can be. ppl can one up others by showing how eminently reasonable they are. obliging of this type tends to reduce creative options. further, if partners overuse obliging, their commitment to the relationship is never tested, since one or the other always gives in. the pattern can result in a pseudo-solution especially if one or both parties resent the obliging; it will almost always boomerang later on. obliging can further one person’s lack of power. it may signal to that person that the other is not invested enough in the conflict to struggle through, thus encouraging the lower power party to withhold energy and caring.

Common obliging/accommodating responses are:

• whatever
• it just does not matter to me, i will agree to see whatever movie you want
• if you don’t want to move out of state, i am sure we can make it work long distance
• i don’t want to fight about this
• i’m really ok about any food place you pick
• its okay i’ll just work on the weekend to complete the contract
• it is more important to me that we are okay rather than get what i want.

Question 23

Integrating (Collaborating)

Answer 23

• collaborative processes unleash this catalytic power and mobilize joint action among the stakeholders.
• integrating, or collaborating, demands the most constructive engagement of any of the conflict styles. it shows a high level of concern for one’s own goals, the goals of others, the successful solution of the problem, and the enhancement of the relationship.
• note that integrating, unlike compromise, invovles not a moderate level of concern for goals but a high level of concern for goals. integrating is an invitation to the other’s so the two of you can reach a join resolution
• a collab. conflict does not conclude until both parties are reasonably satisfied and can jointly support a solution. relationships are better, not worse, than when the conflict began. no one person ends up feeling run over or overpowered. the style is cooperative, effective and focused on team effort, partnership and shared personal goals. it is also sometimes call mutual problem solving. it is the style that call son all your best communication skills.
• integrative invovles making descriptive and disclosing statements and soliciting reactions from the other person. you make concessions when necessary and accept responsibility for your part in the conflict. integrative does not mean taking total responsibility, such as saying its all my fault i shouldn’t have gotten angry. rather integrating is a struggle with the other to find a mutually agreeable solution. parties engage at an exploratory, problem solving level rather than avoiding or destroying each other. integrating is the search for a NEW way.
• integrating is characterized by statements such as when i get in conflict with someone i try to work creatively with the m to find new options. or i like to assert myself and i also like to be cooperative with others.
• integrating differs from compromising bc in compromising, the parties look for an easy intermediate position that partially satisfies them both, whereas in integrative, parties work creatively to find new solutions that will maximize goals for them both.

Question 24

Integrating (Collaborating)

continued

Answer 24

• Research on the effect of an integrating style is quite consistent- when one learns how to use it, integrating is a successful tool for conflict management. it result sin joint benefit and provides a constructive response to the conflict.
• collab styles in a variety of contexts result sin better decisions and greater satisfaction with partners. cooperative styles allow conflict parties to find mutually agreeable solutions, whether the conflict occurs in an intimate or work situation.
• one of the downsides to integrating is that one party sometimes tries to use it exclusively and denigrates the other conflict party for not using it. for example, if one party is trying to collaborate and the other party is avoiding or dominating, the first party might say well i tried to solve the conflict but he wouldn’t. negative views of the other’s chosen style can become a sophisticated form on one-up, in other worse, what i did was fine so the other person is to blame.
• when you integrate, you induce or persuade the other party to cooperate in finding a mutually favorable resolution to the conflict. you have a mutual versus individual orientation. integrating invovles both parties working together for solutions that not only end the conflict but also maximize the gains for both parties. collaborative tactics also have been labeled “pro social”
• the goals of the individuals and the relationships as a whole are paramount
• some sample integrative statements are:
• i want to make sure this works for the two of us
• yes i know you would like to flip a coin but let’s chat some more and come up with a more creative solution
• tell me again again why this solutions will or will not work for you
• let’s not decide right away but come together this afternoon and figure out a solutions that will work for the both of us
• you are an important part of our team and I’d like to hear your preferences before we decide
• let’s each lay out our concern and then figure out how to address them

other guidelines:

• describe without interpretation. describe what you feel, see, hear, touch and smell instead of your guesses about the behavior. you’re so quiet, ever since i said i didn’t want to go out tonight and would rather stay home and read you haven’t spoken to me. not - you never understand when i want to spend some time along
• focus on what is instead of what should be. you look angry. are you? not you should be angry just because i want to stay home.
• describe your own experience instead of attributing things to other person. i’m finding myself not wanting to bring up any ideas because i’m afraid you will ignore them. not you are getting more critical all of the time.

Question 25

Integrating (Collaborating)

continued

Answer 25

• integrative or collaborative styles are very different from competitive tactics. a competitive tactic assumes that the size of the pie is finite; therefore, ones tactics are designed to maximize gains for oneself and losses for the other.
• integrative tactics assume that the size of the pie can be increased by working with the other party. both can leave the conflict with something they value
• some ppl experience only avoidance or competitive attitudes toward conflict and have a difficult time visualizing an integrative approach. if each time you have a conflict you immediate say to your partner, you are wrong, you are likely to receive a competitive response in return.
• integrating calls for a willingness to move with rather than against the other- a willingness to explore and struggle precisely when you may not feel like it. you do not give up for self-interest; you integrate it with the other’s self-interest to reach agreement.
• you do not have to like the other party but you do have to communicate respect. integrating does require “we” language rather than “I” language.
• bc parties work together for mutually desirable outcomes and protect their own as well as each other’s interests, many times respect and caring develop as by-products of the collaborative effort.
• one makes disclosing statements by saying such things as I am having trouble tracking this issue or otherwise reporting one’s feelings while in the conflict. you can also solicit disclosure from the other party by saying what makes you so upset when i bring up the summer plans? one can also make qualifying statement and solicit criticism as ways to move the conflict toward integrating.
• the final three categories of collaborative tactics, classified as conciliatory remarks, are
  (1) supportive remarks: such as i can see why that is difficult-we have all been ganging up on you
  (2) concessions: such as okay i agree i need to find new ways to deal with this problem
  (3) acceptance of responsibility: yes i have been acting uncooperatively lately
• all conciliatory remarks acknowledge one’s own role in the conflict and offer an “olive branch” of hope and reconciliation to the other party, paving the way to successful management of the conflict. all of the collaborative tactics move the conflict into a third dimensions where partners neither avoid nor blame but grapple with the conflict as a joint problem to be solved.
• collaborative, or integrative, tactics are associated with successful conflict management. similarly, popular prescriptions for conflict management specify that one should work with the partner to establish mutual gain and to preserve the relationship and should engage in neither avoidance nor verbal aggressiveness but try to find mutual solutions to the problems

Question 26

Integrating

Advantages vs. Disadvantages

Answer 26

Advantages:
- integrating works well to find a collaborative solution that will satisfy both parties. it generates new ideas, shows respect for the other party, and gains commitment to the solution for both parties. because integrating incorporates the feelings of the concerned parties, they both feel the solutions are reality based. integrating is a high-energy style that fits people in long-term committed relationships, whether the goals are personal or professional. integrating actively engages and affirms the importance of the relationship and content goals and thus builds a team or partnership approach to conflict management. when integrating works, it prevents one from using destructive means such as violence. it demonstrates to the parties that conflict can be productive.

Disadvantages:

• as with any stye, if integrating is the only style used, one can become imprisoned by it. if investment in the relationship or issue is low, integrating can become worthless and not with the time and energy consumed. further, ppl who are more verbally skilled than others can use integrating in very manipulative ways, which result sin a continue power discrepancy between the parties. for example, if one party uses integrating, he or she may accuse the other of being “unreasonable” by choosing a different style. often, high power persons use pseudo-integrating to maintain the power imbalance.; this is when you say all the right things but ultimately you always gain at the others expense.
• example: members of a small group in a com class are under time pressure to finish their project, due in a week. the overuse collab techniques such as consensus building. brainstorming, paraphrasing and bringing out silent members. quickly breaking up into subgroups would better serve the individual and relational goals of the group but the group clings to a time consuming method of making decisions long after they should have adapted their style to meet the deadline.

Question 27

Cautions about Styles

Answer 27

• bc conflict styles are generating so much research some cautions are in order. as we mentioned, one’s culture may make a difference. if the cultural studies could be grouped according to the degree of individualism and collectivism in each culture that would be helpful.
• one study suggests “overall the pattern of the five conflict modes did not vary greatly across countries or in comparison to the U.S. Norm Sample”
• regardless of the cultural context, one consistent and serious limitation to the studies is the focus on self reports. your perception of conflict style depends on whether you are rating yourself or others are rating you. in some research and in workshops two patterns emerge: (1) people most often see themselves as trying to solve the problem (using integrative styles)
  (2) people most often see others using controlling or aggressive styles.
• most of us see ourselves as trying to solve the conflict and the others obstructing. in one workshop, p’s, all who had disputes with someone else in the room, filled out the instrument just like you did earlier in this chapter on my styles and the other’s styles. when the results were tallied, an interesting result was clear. almost all p’s said “i integrated and the other dominated.” two earlier studies found that managers see themselves as cooperative and others as competitive, demanding or refusing
• Gayle found self-report to have a social desirability bias (giving answers that “look good”). one person’s “narrative” about the conflict will probably not match that of the other person. in conflict, we tend to see ourselves in a positive light and others in a negative light. amazingly, most research on styles still uses self-reports, assuming they tell us what “style” someone actually used. at minimum, studies need to look at the following:
• Person A - my styles, person B styles
• Person B - my styles, person A styles
• without such joint data, any conclusions are problematic
• the relational context often triggers and idiosyncratic style.
• many ppl do not use a consistent style across a variety of relationships. people may use different styles in different contexts. Eric said that when he is in public he competes every chance he gets. yet in private with his wife, he avoids conflict as though it were a dreaded disease. when his wife brings up conflicting issues, he either avoids or completely obliges her- he cannot stand conflict within an intimate relationship. yet if Eric were to fill out a widely used style instrument, he would give a different answer depending on the relational context. but since a significant number of ppl adapt to different situations with different styles, to give them a single label such as compromise is a gross oversimplification.

Question 28

Cautions about Styles

continued

Answer 28

• research takes a “snapshot” of conflict styles asking you what you did in a relationship. for many ppl, the style changes across time in a given relationship. some individuals develop preferred sequences of styles; for example, one may begin a conflict by avoiding, then move to dominating, then finally integrate with the other party. the accurate assessment of one’s conflict style should measure change over time to reflect the reality for a lot of people.
• in many relationships there are multiple episodes in which “snapshots” will not capture
• one’s overall relationship history is typically not assessed. if you are in a long term relationship you have a rich history of interaction with them influencing your style and your and the other’s perception of it.
• for example, Jen said in my marriage i never stood up for myself and instead kept it all bottled inside to where ti detested him. in the end i completely exploded.
• like Jen, we all develop a conflict style narrative based on our self perception. Jen sees herself as an avoider who only once dominated but don’t you wonder how her ex-husbands narrative about her would diverge? he might say oh she didn’t avoid she was just a weak compromiser. or her true self cam out in the end when she exploded.
• Jen may be different in her next relationship. similarly, a young man who is always dominating learns from his romantic partner how to collaborate- thus changing his style. alternately, someone who avoids conflict learns through trial and error to engage in the conflict earlier, thus changing her predominate mode
• one can change a preferred conflict style, especially in the old style ceases to work well
• your style is often triggered by your perception of other’s choices. for most of us, the other’s style has a dramatic effect on the choices we make. in Ellen’s first marriage, she developed the pattern of occasionally throwing dishes when she was angry. her first husband would flee the house. a few years later, after she had married someone else, they got into an argument. she threw a dish at her new husband who promptly wen tot the kitchen, pick up most of the available dishes on the counter, smashed them to the floor and said “well if we are going to break dishes, let’s do it!” Ellen immediately burst into tears. she wanted a partner who would stay and work out the problem instead of leaving the scene. neither has thrown a dish since.
• conflict styles are a good beginning point for analysis. in every conflict, parties have views of themselves and of others. therefore, knowing YOUR perception of self and other and THE OTHER’S perception of self and of you gives you valuable insight into what fuels the ongoing conflict.

Question 29

Beyond Styles: Harmful Conflict Actions

Answer 29

• each of the five styles presenting so far in this chapter has a place in conflict management. we now turn to choices more extreme than the five styles - that are inappropriate, lead to negative outcomes, and violate the core principles of good communication.
• all of these more extreme actions rest on a win-lose approach to conflict.

Question 30

Beyond Styles: Harmful Conflict Actions

Verbal Aggressiveness and Verbal Abuse

Answer 30

• verbal aggressiveness and verbal abuse are forms of communication violence. rather than just telling someone what might happen to them (using a threat or warning), when you use verbal aggression you attack the self-concepts of the other.
• character attacks “you are just a rotten wife” insults such as “well i suppose someone with your intelligence would see it that way, rough teasing, ridicule and profanity are all forms of verbal aggression
• many conflict parties, when engaged in struggle, immediately begin verbally attacking with abusive language. once you focus on the other as the sole cause of the difficulties, it is easy to slip into disparaging personal remarks. the following are examples of verbal abuse and aggressiveness:
• you’re so stupid, you’re an imbecile, you are ugly, you are low class, i wish you would die, get his by a car, fall off the face of the earth, no one else would have you
• in individualistic cultures, aggressive and abusive talk is common. it attacks the other’s character, background, abilities, physical appearance, and the like. the more important your relationship with someone, the more verbal aggression hurts.
• in a collectivistic culture, on the other hand, the most damaging verbal abuse is directed toward a person’s group, clan, tribe village or family. he’s a drunken Irishman, or you people are all animals.
• one study examined the use of verbal aggression in college age couples and found that based on 5,000 American couples, men and women engage in equal amounts of verbal aggression and other studies show this to be the case. Yelsma found that 70 percent of partners in dating relationships reported some form of verbal abuse. if an occasional lapse into verbal aggression occurred, partners seemed able to absorb it, but in distressed relationships, verbal aggression was associated with ineffective conversational skills and was much more frequent than in satisfactory relationships.
• the negative impacts of verbal aggression is felt by most of us. when we hear someone in public verbally abusing another, we tend to cringe. the person engaging in verbal aggression most often doesn’t perceive their com. as aggressive.

Question 31

Beyond Styles: Harmful Conflict Actions

Verbal Aggressiveness and Verbal Abuse
continued

Answer 31

• people who exhibit high verbal aggressiveness claim that 46% of their verbally aggressive message are humorous. but outsiders view verbally aggressive ppl as less credible and as having fewer valid arguments than those who don’t use aggressive language. if a couple is verbally aggressive, the tend to infuriate each other and lack the skill to undo the relationship damage.
• as shown in the following list of abusive vs. nonabusive talk, verbally abusive couples differ from nonabusive couples in how they talk

Abusive vs. Nonabusive

• vague vs. precise language
• opposition vs. integrating
• negative relational talk vs. content talk
• despair vs. optimism
• interfering with interdependence vs. facilitating interdependence
• complaints vs. compliments
• ineffective change vs. effective change
• verbal aggression is closely associated with physical abuse. verbal aggression is a precursor to and predictor of physical aggression in adolescents and in marriage and other romantic relationships. adding injury to insult, verbally aggressive couples sometimes do not see their aggression as a problem.
• sometimes, r’s label verbally aggressive tactics as harassment. a direct verbal attack on another can have serious consequence. in Sweden, an estimated 100 to 300 ppl each year to commit suicide as a result of harassment by work colleagues. one study found that in a Finnish university, women were more often harassed than men, and women holding administrative and service jobs were harassed more often than female professors.
• making negative comments about appearance or clothing is considered harassment if the speaker is in a high-power relationship with the “target” person. additionally, if a high power person ridicules a low power person’s mode of speech or makes sexually explicit suggestions or observations, harassment is occurring.
• finally, when a high power person negatively labels a low power person’s personality, using words such as brain dead, lower, whiner, bitch or wimp, the target person is being harassed.
• such comments, whether labeled harassment or verbal aggression, can occur at home, work, public or any type of relationship. and sometimes, these destructive verbal tactics escalate to the next level-physical violence.

Question 32

Beyond Styles: Harmful Conflict Actions

Verbal Aggressiveness and Verbal Abuse
continued

Answer 32

• when verbally abusive tactics are extreme, they can be characterized by the rapist style. in the rapist style (this metaphor is not meant to imply only sexual behavior but all kinds of dominating com. behavior), p’s function through power, through an ability to apply psychic and physical sanctions, through rewards and especially punish and through commands and threats.
• the conflict or argument is often escalated, since p’s are interested in coercion rather than agreement. the intent of those using the rapist style is to manipulate and violate the personhood of the “victims” or other parties in the conflict.
• verbal aggression often feels like and is violation of the humanity of the other, like rape
• people can be, however, trained to stop using verbal aggression. learning how to argue without attacking the other’s self is one of the key steps in stopping verbal aggression as well as controlling the emotional flooding associated with verbal abuse and verbal aggression
• one the other side, if individuals can recognize the sings of possible escalation, they might be able to seek help.

Question 33

Beyond Styles: Harmful Conflict Actions

Bullying

Answer 33

• bullying is “ongoing, persistent badgering, harassment and psychological terrorizing…that demoralizes, dehumanizes and isolates the targeted”
• bullying can occur in any social setting, including the Internet, where it is called cyber bullying. online bullying of peers is the number one threat to juveniles using social networking sites such as fb, twitter, and myspace
• workplace bullying also occurs. defining bullying as repeated and persistent patterns of neg. workplace behavior that is ongoing for six months or longer in duration. 23 percent of the over 1000 participants had experienced bullying in a university setting. when counting victims and witnesses to bullying, a full 45% of the survey respondents experienced bullying. in respect to the US as a whole a random survey of 7000 ppl, 37% reported a direct experience with bullying.
• such bullying is four times more prevalent than illegal forms of harassment. and as you might guess, most bullies are bosses (72%). women are affected more than men.
• further, while we hear about the US being ‘lawsuit happy’ only 3% of those affected filed lawsuits
• those targeted are the ones most often who lose their jobs. abroad, one Denmark study found that bullying in the workplace negatively affected both the organizational climate and the psychological health of those bullied.
• the effects of workplace bullying everywhere are clear, the targets psychological occupational and family functions decline. job performance slips and the orgs reputations, is damaged.
• bullying at work can take many forms - supervisors abusing subordinates, same level workers tormenting peers, and coworkers gaining up on an individual. when asked about his or her experience, the recipient of bullying feels vulnerable or tortured, that is a “fixed fight” and has nightmares.
• targets of bullying suffer long-term, sometimes permanent-damage.
• if you attend US schools you know that bullying occurs there also. children sometimes do recognize it when it occurs and yet it is strongly linked to other aggressive behaviors. take the case of will, the smallest boy in the class. in his rural town, all boys went out for sports and will was harassed on a daily basis in the locker room being shoved, hit with towels and called names. such persistent acts continued until he quit participating in sports all together.

Question 34

Beyond Styles: Harmful Conflict Actions

Bullying
continued

Answer 34

• schools have begun anti bullying programs bc bullying is so common and harmful. studies show that bullying prevention programs yield a large decrease in bullying. they typically teach elementary students how to recognize emotions, consider the other’s emotions, act without verbal aggression, and chose a response other than anger.
• bullying usually begins as incivility. workplace bullying does not arise out of a vacuum. rather, it is often a consequence of unmanaged incivility, rudeness and injustice that contaminates the workplace.
• incivility, over time, can develop into bullying as repeated, long term acts wear down, demoralize , stigmatize, and isolate those target. bullying, then, is one of a group of aggressive acts that have serious consequences for the recipient.

Question 35

Beyond Styles: Harmful Conflict Actions

Violence

Answer 35

• violence consists of any verbal or physical strategy that attempts to convince, control, or compel others to your point of view. violence occurs when conflict interactions move beyond threats to verbal abuse and verbal aggressiveness.
• violence occurs in the home, on dates, at work, etc.
• specifying the details of violence, the two most research scales used are CTS and CTS2. the two versions CTS and CTS2 use items on negotiations, psychological aggression, physical assault, sexual coercion, and injury. some sample items from the two scales are:
• threw something at my partners that could hurt them
• twisted my partners arm or hair
• pushed or shoved my partner
• had a broke bone from a fight with my partner
• used force like hitting, holding down or using a weapon to make my partner have sex
• grabbed my partner
• used a knife or gun on my partner
• punched or hit them with something that could hurt them
• chocked them
• slammed then against the wall
• beat up my partner
• kicked my partner
• the more severe forms of violence occur less frequently. however, although we will never know the precise rates of violence, it is more common than we usually assumed.
• in the US almost 20% of ppl reported experience a violent episode in the prior year of their romantic relationship and more than four million women each year are physically harmed by their husbands, boyfriends and other intimate partners. similarly, in Australia, more than 20 percent of couples have experienced violence.
• premarital violence is a serious social problem that affects more than 30 percent of the young people in the US who date.
• in unhappy marriages, 70% of the couples reported physical aggression in the prior year.
• men commit about 13 million violent crimes each year, with only half being simple assaults, while women commit about 2.1 million violent crimes a year, with three quarters being simple assault.
• in another study of dating relationships, 23 percent of students reported being pushed, grabbed or shoved by their partner.
• most common form of physical aggression practiced by both men and women were pushing, shoving and slapping. additionally, 16.3 out of 1,000 children were reported to have been abused and or neglected and in 16% of homes, some kind of violence between spouses had occurred in the year prior to the survey.
• in summary, most researchers conclude violence is indeed common in American families. further, these incidents of violence are not isolated attacks nor are they just pushes and shoves. in many families, violence is patterned and regular and often results in broken bones and sutured cuts. violence spans all social and economic boundaries, though it is more prevalent in families with low income, low educational achievement and low status employment
• another working definition of violence is an act carried our with the intention or perceived intention of causing physical or injury to another person.
• in conflict terms, violent behavior is an attempt to force one’s will one the other - to get him or her to stop doing something or to start doing something. clearly, it is a one-sided tactic designed to force the other to do one’s bidding.

Question 36

Violence:

Patterns of Violence

Answer 36

• Tenet 1: Physical aggression is almost always preceded by verbal aggression - small, insignificant acts lead to verbal sparring, which then escalates into physical aggression or abuse. the spiral of destruction continues until the physically stronger one, usually the man, gets an upper hand. the important feature here is that the physical abuse does not arise out of nowhere-it follows, hostile, competitive verbal acts. the partner’s engage in an aggression ritual that ends in violence.
• Tenet 2: Intimate violence is usually reciprocal (both participate) - aggression and violence are reciprocal-once on partner engages in violence, the other is likely to respond in kind. in intimate relationships, the woman is more likely than the man to engage in violent low power tactics: the woman is 14 times more likely than the man to throw something and 15 times more likely than the man to slap. however, 40% of all women who are murdered are killed by someone close to them. major differences in male and female violence show up in the seriousness and the effective of violence. there is no question that women are seriously victimized much more than men. both p’s are likely to report being both victims and perpetrators of aggression; 85% of couples report that the aggression is bidirectional. these stats suggest that there is an attack-counterattack sequence to the majority of violent episodes. once violence begins, both people tend to participate, it is a dyadic, interactive event.
• Tenet 3: Women and children suffer more injuries - violence damages women and children more than men, regardless of the cycle of interaction leading up to it. advocates for battered women point to a cohesive pattern of coercive controls that include verbal abuse, threats, and psychological manipulation, sexual coercion, and control of economic resources. additionally, many women learn not to confront and remain unskilled in effective verbal defense. many women try to placate rather than leave the scene. socialization of women that teaches them to be forgiving also leads to women staying in abusive relationships. all you have to do is volunteer at a battered women’s shelter or read in the newspaper about child abuse to see who loses. when men hit a women and women hit men, the real victims are almost certainly going to be the women. even when women use weapons as a way to gain the upper hand, they are still injured more often. throughout history, women have been the victims of violence.

Question 37

Violence:

Patterns of Violence
continued

Answer 37

• Tenet 4: Victims of abuse are in a no-win situation - once the cycle of abuse begins, the victim of the abuse has few good options. it is fruitless to try to use aggression against a stronger and more violent person. yet, on the other hand, it is extraordinarily difficult to leave bc the perpetrator is trying to control all of your actions. 40% of victims of dating violence continue their relationship and that most women who seek help from a battered women’s shelter return to their spouses. many women go back to these situations bc with children they cannot make a living. many women feel guilty about the failure of the relationship and go back, believing the promises made for a change. 70% of fathers who sought custody for their children were successful so many women, especially poor women, are afraid of losing their children if they stay away. tragically, abusers escalate their control tactics when victims try to leave. more domestic abuse victims are killed when they are trying to leave than at any other time. it is difficult for women with children to flee when they are so dependent on the very person who is violent with them.
• Tenet 5: Perpetrators and victims have discrepant narratives about violence - one of the reasons that it is so hard to decrease violence is that perpetrators of violent acts see their behavior as something that could not be helped or as due to external, mitigating circumstances. thus they may cast themselves as unjustly persecuted for a minor, unavoidable or nonexistent offense.