Lecture 17: Conflict Flashcards
conflict
arises when one individual’s pursuit of their goals interferes with the other person’s goals
conflict in interdependent relationships
- Inevitable in interdependent relationships, where our outcomes are affected by the actions of the other person
- Any two individuals will occasionally differ in their motives, beliefs, and opinions, and these incompatibilities (whether they are occasional or chronic) create conflict
- Runs the gamut from minor things (ex. which movie to watch) to major life decisions (e.g., whether to have children & how to raise them)
- Even in generally compatible couples, incompatibilities will occasionally arise
- Competing motives are constantly in flux (ex. autonomy vs. connection)
what do couples disagree on?
- Basically everything
- Most common: children, chores, and communication
instigating events for conflict
Sources of conflict are diverse, but instigating events can be grouped into four general categories:
1. criticism
2. illegitimate demands
3. rebuffs
4. cumulative annoyances
criticism
verbal or nonverbal acts that communicate unfair dissatisfaction with a partner
illegitimate demands
requests that are excessive and seem unjust
rebuffs
occurs when one is denied a desired reaction
cumulative annoyances
relatively trivial events that become irritating with repetition (social allergies)
are conflicts inevitable?
- Conflicts are inevitable
- But, they do not have to be destructive
- How we disagree during conflict is more important than whether we disagree or what we disagree about
- We can exercise control over our actions (even if it’s hard)
4 types of couples
- valdating
- volatile
- conflict avoiding
- hostile
validating couples
compromise often & work out problems to mutual satisfaction
volatile couples
frequent, passionate conflict, tempered by positive affect (humour, displays of fondness)
conflict avoiding couples
agree to disagree, avoid conflict head-on
hostile couples
least stable pairing, characterized by high levels of hostility
2 subtypes of hostile couples
- engaged subtype
- detached subtype
engaged subtype
- Attempt to address disagreements, but do so badly
- Argue often & intensely, often with insults, name-calling, put-downs
detached subtype
let disagreements fester, are emotionally detached (although with occasional bouts of sniping)
relationship satisfaction in 4 types of couples
- Couples, where at least one member is validating, tend to be happier
- Types 1-3 can be stable, but will only work to the extent that they help maintain the golden 5:1 ratio between positive and negative interactions
the four horsemen of the apocalypse
- Exchanges of unhappy couples are characterized by more negative affect & less positive affect
- 10 times more likely to use a negative tone of voice
- Expressions of negative emotions are not necessarily bad for relationships: it can actually increase closeness
- But 4 hostile dynamics do not bode well for relationships: criticism, contempt, defensiveness, stonewalling
criticism
- attacking personally or character
- More likely to put their partner on the defensive
complaint
airing out disagreements by focusing on a specific behaviour
shifting from complaining to criticism
- A shift from complaining to criticism commonly arises if complaints are not addressed (due to poor communication and/or unwillingness to address the complaint)
- Unlike complaints, criticisms tend to be generalizations
- You always, you never
kitchen-sinking
- ”Bundling” complaints
- Similar effect to criticism of a partner’s personality because it seems so overwhelming & pervasive
- Results in conversation drifting off-beam
off-beam
wandering from topic to topic without resolving anything
contempt
- Most destructive of all the horsemen
- Criticism coupled with scorn & disgust, a sense of superiority
- Intention to insult and psychologically abuse partner
- Includes insults & name-calling, hostile humour, mocking, nonverbal cues of disgust
- Underlying feelings of disgust and negatively toward the partner
- See them as stupid, disgusting, incompetent, and foolish
- Loss of admiration for the partner
defensivenessness involves protecting against the attack by:
- Denying responsibility
- Making excuses
- Cross-complaining
- Yes-butting
- Repeating yourself without paying attention to what the other is saying
- Playing the victim
cross-complaining
responding to a complaint with another complaint
yes-butting
start off by agreeing with your partner, but end up disagreeing by finding something unworkable with what they’re saying or justifying your actions
defensiveness
- An understandable reaction when feeling beleaguered
- But it obstructs communication and tends to escalate rather than de-escalate conflict
- Engenders feelings of tension and prevents partners from hearing & understanding each other
stonewalling
- Withdrawing from and disengaging from meaningful conversation with the partner
- Removing oneself from the conversation, not responding, offering monosyllabic responses, ignoring the partner
- Provocative & destructive: conveys disapproval, creates distance, and precludes resolution
flooding
- A sense of being overwhelmed by negative emotion and strong physiological arousal
- Impedes constructive discussion; leads to hostility, defensiveness, and withdrawal
- With chronic flooding: hypervigilance for signs of attack, immersion in distress-maintaining thoughts
- Statements like “We need to talk” can immediately put the partner on the defensive
Demand/withdraw patterns
destructive pattern of conflict where one person presses the issue, while the other withdraws & avoids discussing the issue
cyclical pattern of the demand/withdraw patterns
- The more the demander pushes, the more the withdrawer retreats
- Because arguments are left unsettled, leads to serial arguing
- Linked to personal and relationship distress
gender differences in the demand/withdraw pattern
- Men are more likely to be withdrawers/stonewallers, and women are more likely to be demanders
- This pattern is seen cross-culturally
3 possible explanations for the demand/withdraw pattern
- biological perspective
- differences in socialization
- differences in power
biological perspective
- Men experience stronger & longer-lasting physiological stress responses during conflict and are more prone to flooding
- More reactive to conflict
differences in socialization
- Boys are socialized to hide & suppress emotions, focus on pursuing autonomous goals
- Girls are socialized to express feelings, focus on relationships, foster intimacy/closeness, and receive more support when expressing emotions
differences in power
- The person who wants change is in a lower-power position and must rely on the other person to create change
- The person who benefits from the status quo will be resistant to change because they hold the power in the situation
- Women tend to desire more change in the relationship than men, which puts them in a lower-power role in heterosexual relationships
Comparison of heterosexual, gay, and lesbian couples for the demand/withdraw pattern
- If there is something essential about men vs. women, we would not expect to see the demand-withdraw asymmetry in gay & lesbian couples
- Some have found no difference in overall levels of demand/withdraw behaviour or asymmetry between couple types
- Others have found that women demand more and men withdraw more regardless of couple time
- Regardless of gender, the person who wants change (low power) demands, and the more powerful person (the one invested in the status quo) withdraws
cycle of negativity in close relationships
- The first three minutes of a conversation set the tone
- Can be used to predict subsequent divorce with 96% accuracy
- Unhappy, risky couples are more likely to reciprocate negativity
- Meet negative behaviours with defensiveness, stonewalling
harsh startup
leading discussion with contempt or criticism
negative affect reciprocity
negative emotions are met with negative emotions
accomodation
- Even happy couples sometimes engage in negative behaviour, but we are better able to keep negativity from spiralling out of control
- Willingness to respond to destructive acts with constructive responses
- Characteristic of committed couples
- Breaks the cycle of negativity
- Often begins with the way we think about our partner’s behaviour
the role of cognition in conflict
- The way we behave during a disagreement is important
- But so are our perceptions of partners’ behaviours
attributional conflict
- We agree on what happened but not why it happened
- Fuelled by actor-observed differences and self-serving biases
mindreading
- One’s tendency to assume that they understand their partner’s thoughts, feelings, and opinions without asking
- Unhappy partners tend to read unpleasant or hostile motives into neutral or positive ones
- Attributions of harmful intent are particularly detrimental
cognitive editing
- Responding only to constructive portions of the partner’s comment and ignoring the negative
- Prevents escalation & helps re-focus on the issue at hand
breaking the cycle of negativity
- There are several broad patterns of behaviour that can disrupt the cycle of negativity and facilitate more constructive discussion:
1. Calm down
2. Listen and speak constructively and nondefensively
3. Validate your partner
4. Challenge your mindset
taking a break
- Calming down is essential (helps prevent flooding, defensiveness, stonewalling, and belligerence)
- Learn to recognize when you’re feeling overwhelmed & take a time out
- Let your partner know that you are not shutting them out
- DON’T spend time out rehearsing vengeful or distress-maintaining thoughts
- DO try to reframe thoughts more positively
- Ex. “they’re super upset right now, but this isn’t a personal attack”, “I’m upset now but we have a good relationship and I love them”
speaking more constructively
- Criticisms (personal attacks on a partner’s character) & contempt trigger defensiveness
- Behaviour descriptions
- Avoid words like “always” and “never”
- I-statements: description of your feelings
- XYZ statements: combine behaviour descriptions and I-statements
“When you do X in situation Y, I feel Z” - Avoid domineering (e.g., “When I want your opinion, I will let you know) and belligerent speech (e.g., “What do you want now?”)
behaviour descriptions
voice complaints by focusing on discrete, manageable behaviours
active listening
- Listen in order to understand what your partner is saying (not in order to criticize your partner)
- Don’t mindread—instead:
paraphrase their message to make sure you understood them correctly and practice perception checking to make sure you are inferring your partner’s feelings correctly - Even simple backchannel communications like nodding, “yeah”, ”uh-huh”, and “I see” can communicate that you are trying to understand your partner
- Avoid displaying negative nonverbal behaviour while you’re listening
validation
- Try to understand & empathize with the feelings behind your partner’s communications
- Understanding the other’s point of view & taking it seriously does not mean you must agree
- But such validation communicates respect & care for your partner, which de-escalates the situation & promotes an open, constructive dialogue
techniques for validation
- Put yourself in your partner’s shoes or try taking a third-party perspective
- Take responsibility for your actions
- Avoid yes-butting when acknowledging your partner’s point of view
challenge your mindset
- Instead of rehearsing thoughts related to victimhood & righteous indignation, examine how you contribute to the negative dynamics in your relationship
- Ex. in the demand-withdraw pattern: as the demander, your criticisms and attempts to control your partner are threatening them & pushing them away. As the withdrawer, your stonewalling & turning away from the partner thwarts their needs & leads them to escalate their demands
- Remember what you like about your partner
- Push back against the tendency to rewrite history (memory bias)
- Communicate positive regard & admiration for your partner
- Instead of seeing argument as a way to retaliate or exert control over your partner, think of a way you can improve both your outcomes
- Try to foster a sense of optimism about the problem
importance of self-control
- Successful conflict management requires self-control
- Factors that weaken our inhibitions or strain our cognitive resources (ex. alcohol, stress, lack of sleep) increase irritability, decrease perspective-taking, and make a destructive response more likely
- John Gottman recommends scheduling a time to politely air out grievances
- Addressing issues pre-emptively when we are feeling calm may help avoid the disastrous combo of provocation + low self-control
