Lecture 19: Power and Violence Flashcards
power
the ability to exert influence on the other partner to obtain desired outcomes, and being able to resist their influence
influence strategies
various methods or tactics that individuals use to affect the behaviours, thoughts, or feelings of others
2 dimensions of influence strategies
valence & directness
valence
use or promise of rewards vs. punishments (positive vs. negative)
directness
overt, visible, unambiguous, vs. more subtle (direct vs. indirect)
types of negative direct strategies
coercion & autocracy
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
types of negative indirect strategies
manipulation & negative affect without explanation
manipulation
- Attempt to make the partner feel guilty (ex. Remind of past favours or partner transgressions, appeal to obligations, commitments, or fairness)
- Appeal to partner’s love and concern
negative affect without explanation
Silent treatment, sulking, pouting
types of positive direct strategies
use of logic or rational reasoning
use of logic or rational reasoning
- Explain behaviour or point of view in a way the partner would find reasonable
- Ex. suggest solutions, assess consequences, weight pros and cons
types of positive indirect strategies
soft positive
soft positive
- Soften persuasion attempts pointing out good characteristics of partner, minimizing problem
- Encourage partner to express point of view & feelings about the situation
- Be open to, acknowledge, and validate partner’s views
- Be charming & express positive affect (ex. Non-snarky humour)
Partner regulation attempts
- When our partners try to change us
- Communicates that we are not living up to a partner’s ideal
- In general, we don’t like this
impact of influence strategies on relationships
- How it is done matters
- Negative influence strategies can convey contempt & disregard, escalate conflict, and lead to more negative evaluations of relationship quality. This is particularly detrimental when facing minor problems
- Indirect strategies may lack sufficient force, resulting in the problem going unsolved
- Positive influence strategies can offset negative effects of regulation behaviour, convey care and regard
Social power theory
there are 6 bases (sources) of power
reward power
- The target perceives that an agent has the ability to provide them with desired rewards if they adopt certain beliefs, attitudes, or behaviours the agent desires
- Often associated with the use of positive reinforcement
coercive power
- the 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
- Ex. threats of punishment
legitimate power
- the target perceives that the agent has the right to affect the target, who must then comply with the agent’s request
- Influenced by social norms
Norm of social responsibility
we are obligated to help those who cannot help themselves
Norm of reciprocity
do unto others as they have done unto us
referent power
the target wants to emulate the agent, who is someone they admire greatly
Expert power
the target perceives that the agent has the ability to provide them with valuable knowledge (in a broad sense)
Informational power
the target perceives that the agent has specific information that may be useful to the target, but the target must cooperate with the agent to get it
6 types of social power
- reward power
- coercive power
- legitimate power
- referent power
- expert power
- informational power
interdependence theory & power
- Offers a more dyadic account of power
- In an interdependent relationship, partners depend on each other for outcomes
- This means that they typically have power over each other (counterpower)
- They exercise different amounts of power in different domains
- Recall that dependence = outcomes - Clalt
- Thus, partners who have better alternatives to the current relationship have greater power
- Likely to eventually leave the relationship unless the partner can provide them with special outcomes
Principle of lesser interest
the partner who is less dependent on the relationship and who desires it less has more power in the relationship
Two types of control when making a joint decision
fate control & behavioural control
fate control
one partner totally determines the outcomes of the other partner
behaviour control
- One partner can make it more reading for the other partner to change their behavioural choices
- Usually draw on reward power
what types of control do happy couples engage in?
Happy couples are more likely to rely on behaviour control than fate control
strategies to increase one’s power
- Increase the quality of their own alternatives
- Decrease the apparent quality of their partner’s alternatives
- Improving the value of rewards they can bestow on their partner
- Reducing their partner’s perceived qualities & skills (to make them feel more dependent on the rewards that the influencer can provide)
- Devaluing what the partner can offer to oneself
relational consequences of power imbalances
- Relationships with a high imbalance in power tend to be characterized by lower satisfaction, less stability, and greater conflict
- Power affects our emotional experience and the way we related to others
approach/ inhibition theory of power
two behavioural systems help us navigate the world: 1) behavioural approach system & 2) behavioural inhibition (or avoidance) system
Behavioural approach system
- Moves us toward desired outcomes
- Triggered by the presence of rewards & opportunities
Behavioural inhibition (or avoidance) system
- Moves us away from threats
- Triggered by punishment, threat, and uncertainty
applying the approach/inhibition theory of power to relationships
- Power influences the balance of the tendencies to approach and inhibit
- Power is associated with the 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 and decisions
- The approach/inhibition theory of power predicts that power should make people behave in less constrained and at times, more inappropriate ways
- Ex. upper-class individuals are more likely to break traffic laws
- Partners who perceive themselves as more committed to the relationship are more likely to refrain from hostile behaviour during conflict discussions, less likely to retaliate
- The more powerful partner in relationship is more likely to be aggressive
- But, partners who have low power and desire more power may also engage in coercive controlling tactics (especially when they are men)
perspective-taking and the approach/inhibition theory of power
This theory predicts that power will decrease perspective-taking
perspective-taking study
- Some participants recalled an incident where they have power over others and others recalled an incident where others had power over them
- Primed participants to feel more or less powerful
- Draw an “E” on your forehead
- Power-primed participants were more likely to draw the E in the way that it would be legible to themselves
- This was interpreted as a lack of perspective-taking
other perspective-taking studies
- Less accurate in decoding emotional expressions
- Less likely to take into account that others do not possess their privileged knowledge (ex. Assume their co-worker will understand their sarcasm)
does power corrupt? study method
- Measured the extent to which participants were communally-oriented or exchange-oriented
- Manipulated power by having participants sit in a fancy professor chair or a plain chair
- Following the power manipulation, they were asked to complete a series of questionnaires with another participant
does power corrupt? study findings
- High-power condition: communally-oriented participants performed most of the task while exchange-oriented participants shirked work
- Lower power condition: no effect of communal vs. exchange orientation
does power corrupt? study conclusion
Experimenter’s conclusion: power doesn’t corrupt; it reveals
individual differences and power
- Participants who perceives they were less committed than their partners were 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 worse)
- Lack of power inhibits
- But people may seek to restore power through destructive means
aggression
physical or verbal behaviour intended to harm a person who does not want to be harmed
violence
sometimes, but not consistently, reserved for acts intended to cause extreme physical harm
aggression vs. violence
We will use aggression and violence interchangeable
3 types of violence
- Situational couple violence
- Coercive controlling violence
- Violent resistant
situational couple violence
- Stems from angry verbal exchange that escalate to physical altercation in the absence of general intent by either partner to dominate the other
- Often characterized by milder forms of aggression
- Women are as likely to engage in this kind of violence
- The severity of injuries inflicted by men is higher
- Often mutual, with both partners involved
- Reactive form of violence: reflects frustration & hostility evoked by an argument
Coercive controlling violence
- A form of 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 of coercive controlling violence
- Feelings of fear and confusion
- Invalidating and belittling (emotional abuse, minimizing behaviour)
- Attempts to control (isolation, economic abuse)
- Threats (intimidation & aggression)
cycle of coercive controlling violence
- Tension-building phase: hostility erupts in angry outbursts, often a response to jealousy, and a desire for control
- Explosive, acute battering phase: tension is unleashed in an act of rage and aggression, often in the context of disagreement or a frustrating moment
- Contrition phase: the perpetrator apologizes, promises to change, and tries to convince the victim that the abuse will never happen again
therapy for couples experiencing intimate terrorism vs. situational couple violence
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
Antisocial personality disorder
lack of regard for others, laws, and social norms; impulsivity, and lack of control over anger
Borderline personality disorder
intense fear of rejection & abandonment, emotional instability & difficulty regulating emotions, and impulsivity
psychological disorders and intimate terrorism
perpetrators are more likely to be diagnosed with APD and BPD
Common characteristics of perpetrators of intimate terrorism
- Insecurity, hypersensitivity to rejection, and jealousy
- Overattribute critical/rejecting thoughts to women
- Easily provoked by anger
- More violent & more likely to see violence as justifiable
- Traditional gender attitudes
- Narcissism
- More likely to abuse drugs and alcohol
- Experiences of aggression & violence in family of origin
- Hostility & emotional insensitivity, exposure to conflict between parents, harsh discipline
narcissism
inflated or unstable sense of self-esteem, sensitivity to ego threat & proneness to respond with aggression
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 their own behaviour to avoid triggering
- The majority (70%) seek help from police, counsellors, and medical personnel
violent resistance
- Occurs when a partner forcibly fights back against intimate terrorism
- Women who defend themselves are 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 safety 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 the partner, emotional & economic dependence
- Common belief that they will be worse off
- But, people are happier after leaving abusive partners than they expect
predicting SCV in future relationships
- More of a product of couple dynamics & influenced by situational factors
- May engage in SCV in one relationship but not another
- The strongest predictor of violence is receiving violence
- Negative reciprocity as with verbal conflict
attachment & anger
- Anger is a 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 the potential to destroy the relationship
attachment anxiety & anger
- Attachment anxiety -> high levels of relational anger
- React with anger & hostility to ambiguous cues
- More likely to ruminate on anger-provoking thoughts, less effective emotional regulation
- More emotional spreading
emotional spreading
the activation of one negative emotion leads to the action of other negatively valenced btu 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
SCV is influenced by 3 factors: instigation triggers, impelling influences, and inhibiting influences
Instigating triggers
events that arouse anger (ex. betrayal,insults)
Impelling influences
actors that make it more likely one will experience violent impulses when provoked (ex. family history of violence, impulsivity, attachment insecurity, alcohol or drugs)
Inhibiting influences
factors that counteract aggressive impulses (ex. 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 a greater risk of victimization for gay & lesbian individuals
- The highest rate of victimization was 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, and hesitancy to disclose
