ps373 - conflict & IPV

Conflict

Occurs when one’s wishes or actions actually obstruct or impede those of someone else

2 reasons why conflict is inescapable

1. The moods/preferences of any two people will ocassionally differ

2. There are certain tensions woven into the fabric of close relationships, that will eventually cause strain

Dialectics

When people have opposing motivations that can never be entirely satisfied because they contradict each other

Common dialectics in close relationships (4)

1. personal autonomy and connection to others

2. Openness and closedness

3. Stability and change

4. Integration and separation

Influences correlated with conflict (7)

1. Personality (high negative emotionality)

2. Attachment style (insecure, anxious, avoidant)

3. Stage of life (young adulthood)

4. Similarity (incompatibility)

5. Stress

6. Sleep

7. Alcohol

Most common forms of conflict

1. Parents disagreeing on how to parent their children

2. Division of household chores

3. Communication

4. Money

Peterson (2002) instigating conflict categories (4)

1. Criticism

2. Illegitimate demands

3. Rebuffs

4. Cumulative annoyances

Criticism

Involves verbal or nonverbal acts that are judged to communicate unfair dissatisfaction with a partner’s behaviour, attitude, or trait

Illegitimate demands

Involve requests that seem unjust because they exceed the normal expectations that the partners hold for each other

Rebuffs

Involve situations where one person appeals to another for a desired reaction, and the other person fails to respond as expected

Cumulative annoyances

Relatively trivial events that become irritating with repetition

Social allergies

Through repeated exposure to small recurring nuisances, people may develop hypersensitive reactions of disgust and exasperation that seem out of proportion to any particular provocation

The 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Gottman)

1. criticism = attacking a partner’s personality rather than behavior

2. contempt = mocking, name-calling, or belittling the partner

3. defensiveness = denying responsibility and shifting blame

4. stonewalling = withdrawing from interaction, often due to emotional overload

From an evolutionary perspective, some conflict in heterosexual relationships is due to…

Differences in partner’s reproductive interests

Individual differences in sexual tastes and drives can remain a source of…

Distressing rebuffs as long as a relationship lasts

Actor/observer effects guarantee that…

Partners will have slightly different explanations for their actions than anyone else does

Self-serving biases led people to…

Judge their own actions more favourably than others do

The differences between two people’s attributions create conflict in two ways

1. Misunderstandings can lead to failing to appreciate their partner’s point of view

2. Engage in attributional conflict

Attributional conflict

Fighting over whose explanation is right and whose account is wrong

when any conflict occurs, the explanations with which intimate partners account for the….

frustrations they encounter have a huge influence on how distressed they feel and how angrily they respond.

________ attributions paint a partner in a favourable light and make it likely that conflicts can be resolved

benevolent

Peterson’s general model of conflict (2002) stages

1. beginnings

2. middle stages

3. termination

Beginning stages of conflict includes…

1. predisposing conditions (ex. situational stress)

2. initiating events (ex. goals being thwarted)

3. engagement (issue is seen as significant)

   • can lead to avoidance

Middle stages of conflict include…

1. escalation (ex. generalization of issue)

   • leads to negotiation

2. separation (ex. problem is seen as unmanageable)

   • leads to conciliation

3. reconciliation (ex. commitment to relationship)

   • leads to negotiation

Termination stage of conflict includes…

1. structural improvement, integrative agreements, and compromise

2. OR domination and separation

when partners say mean and nasty things to each other, they can be of two types…

1. direct tactics (accusations, hostile commands, antagonistic questions, and sarcastic put-downs)

2. indirect tactics (condescension, dysphoric affect, changing topics, evasive remarks)

Bad tempered conflict becomes really bad when partners develop a pattern of…

negative affect reciprocity (trading escalating provocations back and forth)

emotional flooding

occurs when people become overwhelmed by high arousal and strong emotion and are unable, for a time, to think straught

the demand/withdraw pattern

one partner engages in demanding forms of behavior, such as complaints, criticisms, and pressures for changes, while the other partner engages in withdrawing forms of behavior, such as half-hearted involvement, changing the topic, avoiding discussion, or even walking away

______ are the demanders and _____ are the withdrawers

women; men

Canary & Lakey’s Ways to Negotiate Kindly (2013)

1. showing willingness and accept responsibility

2. exhibit support for one another’s point of view

3. offer self-disclosure with ‘i’ statements

4. provide approval and affection

4 different types of responses to conflict (Rusbult and colleagues — 1982)

1. voice = behaving in an active, constructive manner

2. loyalty = behaving in a passive, constructive manner

3. neglect = behaving in a passive, destructive manner

4. exit = behaving an an actively destructive manner

Accommodation occurs when…

when partners react with calm forbearance to the other’s provocation

Gottman Four Types of Couples in Conflict

1. volatile

2. validators

3. avoiders

4. hostiles

volatile couples

have frequent and passionate arguments

Validator couples

tend to be calmer than volatile couples are, and they behave more like collaborators than like antagonists as they work through their problems

Avoider couples

avoid confrontation, and when a conflict arises, they’re unlikely to discuss it; they’ll often just try to fix it on their own or wait it out, hoping that the passage of time will solve the problem

Hostile couples

the conflicts of these couples are marked by negativity, and their marriages are relatively fragile

Peterson (2002) 5 Ways Conflicts End

1. separation

2. domination

3. compromise

4. integrative agreements

5. structural improvement

speaker-listener technique

provides a structure for calm, clear communication about contentious issues that promotes the use of active listening skills and increases the chances that partners will understand and validate each other despite their disagreement

Can fighting be good for a relationship?

• Yes

• Deft management of conflict allows relationships to grow and prosper

• The speaker-listener technique provides a structure for calm, clear communication about touchy topics

Types of IPV (Johnson, 1995)

1. situational couple violence

2. intimate terrorism

3. violent resistance

situational couple violence

• Arises from specific arguments.

• Equally common in men and women.

• Usually less severe

intimate terrorism

• one partner controls the other through coercion and fear

• 83% male perpetrated

• more dangerous leading to serious injury or homocide

violent resistance

• a partner forcibly fights back against intimate terrorism

• least common of the 3 types

Facets of Intimate Terrorism

1. isolation (controlling where she goes)

2. intimidation

3. economic abuse

4. emotional abuse

5. minimizing (denying abuse)

Prevalence of violence

Violence among intimates is common around the world, and it occurs in one of every four couples in the United States.

I³ Theory (Finkel et al., 2011-2013)

suggests that violence occurs when violent impulses exceed self-restraint; three predictors of violence including (1) instigating trigger, (2) impelling forces, and (3) inhibiting forces

Instigating trigger

Perceived provocation, rejection, or goal obstruction.

Impelling forces

Testosterone, attachment anxiety, and jealousy increase risk.

Inhibiting Forces

Legal consequences, self-control, commitment reduce risk.

Puente & Cohen 2003 Study on jealousy and IPV

• investigate whether jealousy influences perceptions and justification of IPV

• also see if people are more likely to excuse male-perpetrated violence if it is motivated by jealousy

Puente & Cohen 2003 — Study 1

• Jealous husbands were seen as more loving and understandable, even when they acted aggressively.

• Violence was rated as more acceptable when it was linked to jealous

Puente & Cohen 2003 — Study 2

• Participants heard an audio recording of a husband discussing conflict.

• When jealousy was involved, participants were more likely to excuse the husband’s violent reaction.

• If the conflict was non-jealousy-related, violence was judged more harshly

Puente & Cohen 2003 — Study 3

• Included a sexual assault condition.

• In the jealousy condition, only 4% of participants thought the wife should file a rape charge, compared to 31% in the non-jealousy condition.

• Felony conviction rates were also lower when jealousy was involved (28% vs. 54%)

What was the main objective of the Finkel et al. (2009) study?

To investigate whether self-control influences aggression in intimate relationships and whether people act on or override violent impulses during conflict.

How was self-control manipulated in the Finkel study?

Through two conditions:

1. Depletion Condition: Participants completed a mentally exhausting task.

2. Control Condition: Participants completed a neutral task.

What was the provocation manipulation in the Finkel experiment?

Participants drew a creative picture and were told their partner rated it either positively (9/10) or negatively (3/10), though the ratings were fabricated.

How was aggression measured in the Finkel study?

By how long participants made their partner hold a difficult yoga pose—longer times indicated greater aggression

What effect did self-control depletion have on aggression in the Finkel study?

Depleted participants showed more aggression, especially when provoked with negative feedback

What does the Finkel study suggest about the causes of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)?

IPV often results from momentary lapses in self-control, not from deliberate intent; we need self-regulation!