Unit 4 Comm 1131 Joseph Schwartz Northeastern University

types of parenting styles

authoritarian, permissive, authoritative, neglectful, over-involved

authoritarian

demanding and nonresponsive ( the dictator)

• Doesn’t allow much open dialogue, expects children to follow strict rules and expectations

permissive

undemanding and responsible

• Parent avoids confrontation

• Few rules for child’s behavior and general lack of structure

• More interest in a “friend” relationship

authoritative - the healthiest

demanding and responsive (the mentor)

• Parents have high expectations for their children, but temper these expectations with understanding and support

• Structure for child’s life

• Clear expectations for child’s behavior

• Open communication between parent and child

neglectful

not responsive, not demanding (absent parenting)

over involved

• Makes almost all decisions for the child

• Over scheduled child

• Is hesitant to let child makes mistakes (and learn from their mistakes)

separation and individuation

Power struggles and increased conflict between parents and children 

During adolescence communication between parents and adolescents decreases and then recovered to be more adult-like

Level of closeness may also decrease for a bit

More reliance on peers -> peers may become more influential than parents for a period of time

Renegotiation of rules and privacy to reflect child’s age and maturity 

Necessary realignment of relationship roles

This constructive process is most likely to occur when conflicts are neither extreme nor persistent and when they arise in a relationship characterized by warmth and closeness

teenage brain

1. Importance of sleep

2. Prefrontal cortex is last part of brain to develop (18-21)

3. Importance of learning in teenage years

• Synaptic pruning - if you do not use connections in your brain you lose them

traditional marriage - PiM

• One partner makes most decisions; roles are highly specific

  • In heterosexual marriages, by gender

• Imbalanced power 

egalitarian marriages - PiM

• “Peer marriages”

• True partnership - even power and responsibility

• Based on joint decision making

• Use of direct requests and bargaining as a verbal influence strategies

• Use of compromise and collaboration as a conflict style 

brain research to reform school

Push high school start time later due to the fact that teenage sleep cycles are pushed back. Girls brains develop faster than boys brains. Thinks boys should start kindergarten a year later than girls

relational transgressions

• Occurs when individuals break implicit or explicit relational codes of conduct or upset relational expectations

1. Insensitivity to partner’s feelings or needs

2. Deception

3. Infidelity

transgressions often involve hurt feelings, three variables to predict intense hurt feelings

1. Ability to respond

• When people feel like they lack the ability to respond to a hurtful event, their hurt is usually intensified 

2. Perceived intentionality 

• When people feel the partner did something on purpose to hurt them, their hurt is usually intensified 

3. Degree to which hurt feelings were expected

• When hurt feelings are unexpected they tend to be most intense

deception

Managing messages so receiver will understand something in a way that the sender thinks is false

• Up to 25% of daily interactions involve deception

types of deception

1. Lies 

• Information is opposite or different from what the deceiver perceives as the truth 

2. Equivocation

• Information given is indirect, evasive, and/or ambiguous

3. Concealment

• Important information about an issue is left out 

4. Understatement

• Certain details of an issue are downplayed

5. Exaggeration

• Information is overstated; details are sometimes added 

why do we deceive

1. maintaining a relationship

2. managing face needs

3. managing dialectical tensions

4. establishing relational control

5. continuing deception

knowing when our partner deceives us - yes

• Relational closeness helps us detect deception

  • Behavioral familiarity - we know how they normally behave 

  • Informational familiarity - we have information about them

knowing when our partner deceives us - no

• Relational closeness can hinder our ability to detect deception

  • Truth bias - tendency to judge more messages as truths than lies when liking is present 

  • Behavioral control

positive deceptions

Situations that do not directly relate to the relationship or one partners view of the other, deception may help couples avoid arguments and hurt feelings

negative deceptions

• Deceptions about topics that have a significant impact on the relationship or one partner’s view of the other 

  • Infidelity, addiction, financial issues

When people perceive their partner as dishonest, they report less relational satisfaction and commitment

• Deception is a leading cause of conflict and breakup in relationships

solvable problems

problems that can be resolved and make both parties happy

• Specific, concrete, and often related to day to day (household chores, financial decisions, or time management)

unsolvable problems

problems due to fundamental differences in values, personality traits, or deeply ingrained preferences, may not have a clear, mutually satisfying resolution

power theories in relationships

power as a perception, power as a perception, power as a relational concept, power as resource based, power as having less to lose, power as prerogative

power

an individual’s ability to influence others

powerful

able to influence others

enabling power

using expressive, composed behavior to influence others

• Involves the ability to communicate self confidence and competence

• Uses interpersonal relationships to assist in achieving goals

disabling power

using intimidation, threats. Punishment, and other harsh tactics to influence others

• Use of this power effective in short term

• Tends to result in hurt feelings, resistance, resentment, and dissatisfaction

five power principles

Power dynamics in close relationships can be conceptualized in these principles

• Power is dynamic

• Illustrate the importance of egalitarian relationships

power as a perception

• Others are only powerful to the extent to which we think they are powerful

power as a relational concept

• Power exists in all relationships

• People are most happy in egalitarian relationships

  • Though most romantic relationships involve small power imbalances

    • However, power is dynamic

power as resource based

• More resources = more power

• Traditionally conceptualized in terms of money. This narrow conceptualization has been criticized

  • Parenting ability, physical attractiveness, communication skill, sexual rewards

• scarcity hypothesis

  • People have the most power when the resources they possess are hard to come by or in high demand

power as having less to lose

• In a relationship, the person with less to lose has a greater amount of power 

• Dependence power 

  • People who are dependent on their relationships and have low quality alternative are in a powerless position

• Principle of least interest

  • The person who is more attracted and/or more in love has less power

power as a prerogative

The partner with more power can make and break the rules

enacting power

People use power tactics to get people to do things 

Power tactics can be classified in two dimensions

• how direct or indirect

• how unilateral or bilateral

direct - indirect

Asking, persistent 

• Suggesting, positive affect, use of negative affect

unilateral - bilateral

• Unilateral tactics

  • Taking independent action to influence others. Strategies include:

    • Telling, withdrawing 

• Bilateral

  • Using interactive strategies to influence others. Strategies include:

    • Persuasion, bargaining, reasoning

direct and bilateral is associated with

Relationship satisfaction and egalitarian relationships 

powerful speech

• Persuasive and influential

• Communicates confidence and competence 

characterized by:

• Self focus, more talk time, redirection of conversation away from topics others are discussing, interruptions

powerless speech

• Less persuasive and influential

• Communicates uncertainty

• characterized by the prominent use of hedges and tag questions

hedges

• Qualifying statements that give the sender or receiver an “out”

  • “I’m probably way off base here, but…”

tag questions

Asking people to affirm that you are making sense or that they understand you

• “... do you know what I mean?”

self determination theory

Theory of motivation and personality that focuses on understanding the factors that drive human behavior and lead to personal growth, well being, and fulfillment

involves autonomy, competence, and relatedness

the three fundamental psychological needs related to SDT

• Autonomy 

  • The need to feel in control of one’s own actions and decisions, rather than feeling controlled by external forces

• Competence

  • The need to feel capable and effective in one’s pursuit and endeavors

• Relatedness 

  • The need for meaningful connections, relationships, and a sense of belonging with others

in relationships,  individuals may be motivated to interact with their partners because of:

Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amotivation

Extrinsic motivation

engaging in activities to gain rewards, approval, or to avoid conflict or negative consequence

amotivation

a lack of motivation or interest in the relationship, which can lead to disengagement and apathy 

intrinsic motivation SDT

engaging in activities / behaviors within the relationship because you like them or they align with one’s values and desires

***big emphasized**

SDT suggests:

people in healthy relationships are able to balance need for autonomy with desire for emotional closeness and connection 

IM is nurtured when the relationships supports autonomy, competence. and relatedness

types of infidelity

sexual, emotional, communicative, online

sexual infidelity

Occurs when someone engages in sexual activity outside of their committed relationship

• 20 to 40% of dating/cohabiting relationships are marked by sexual infidelity 

  • Self reported

more equal between men and woman now

emotional infidelity

Occurs when someone is emotionally attached to or “in love with” a potential rival

• Goes hand and hand with deception

• May or may not have a sexual component

communicative infidelity

Occurs when people engage in sexual activity with a third party to communicate a message to their partner

• Signal need for attention, means of revenge, message of dissatisfaction 

online infidelity

Romantic or sexual communication facilities by internet use 

why does infidelity occur

• Relational dissatisfaction

• boredom/need for excitement and variety

• Wanting to feel attractive

• Sexual incompatibility

• revenge

discovering sexual infidelity

thirdparty/firsthand, having the partner tell you on their own, partner admits when you question them

finding out infidelity from third party or witnessing it first hand

• Most relationship damaging 

• Likely very hurtful

  • Unexpected

  • Can’t really respond

  • Perception of intentionality

finding out infidelity from your partner on their own

• Least relationship damage

• Suggests partner feels badly/guilty

  • We tend to be more forgiving if we perceive that the person who committed a transgression feels badly or guilty about what they have done

having partner admit infidelity after you question them

Falls in the middle in terms of relational damage

impact of infidelity

• Emotional distress

• Erosion of trust

• Lowered self esteem

• Possible relationship dissolution

what percent of mammals are monogamos

5%

jealousy

Result of a relational transgression, such as a partner having a sexual or emotional affair 

Jealousy can be seen as a transgression in itself, when a partner’s suspicions are unfounded

romantic jealousy

• Occurs when someone worries rival could interview with the existence or quality of their relationship

• Feeling insecure or fearful about the character of the relationship

  • Also feeling insecure about ourselves - “I’m not going to be ok without my partner”

primary appraisals - jealousy

• General evaluations about the existence and quality of the threat

1. Does a rival exist?

   1. Could be real or imagined

2. Is the rival a threat to the relationship?

   1. Threat might be real or imagined

secondary appraisals - jealousy

1. Motives for partner’s interest

   1. Why is my partner interested in the rival?

      1. Real or imagined interest

2. Comparisons to the rival

   1. Am I better than the rival?

      1. Along dimensions of perceived importance 

   
   

3. Evaluation of alternatives

   1. What would I do without my partner? Be single? Date someone else?

4. Assessment of potential loss

   1. How devastated would I be without my partner?

why do people make appraisals for jealousy

• To plan coping strategies

  • Individuals often believe that jealousy will keep them from being surprised, help them defend their rights, and learn how their partner “really” feels

jealous emotions

• Fear and anger 

  • Fear of losing partner

  • Anger at partner, rival, or self for not being able to “keep” partner

communicative response types to jealousy

constructive, destructive, avoidant, rival focused

constructive response to jealousy

• Integrative communication

  • Calm, direct, non aggressive way of disclosing feelings and asking for an explanation 

• Compensatory restoration

  • Doing something to improve self

    • New interests, hobbies, appearance

  • Doing something to improve the relationship

    • Prosocial maintenance behaviors

    • Active listening 

destructive response to jealousy

• Negative communication

  • Arguing, cold looks, sarcasm

• Violent communication

  • Violent threats or actual violence

• Counter jealousy inductions 

  • Trying to make partner jealous

    • Communicative infidelity

avoidant response to jealousy

Denial or silence of/about jealous feeling

It can be neutral - could be great if jealous feelings are unfounded but could backfire and exponentially the bad feelings 

rival focused response to jealousy

• Signs of possession

  • Verbally and non verbal communicating to others that the partner is “taken”

• Derogating competitors

  • Making fun of the rival

• Rival contacts

  • Communicating with rival

Obsessive relational intrusion

Repeated and unwanted pursuit and invasion of ones sense of physical or symbolic privacy by another person, either stranger or acquaintance, who desires and/or presumes an intimate relationship

• Persistent unwanted behavior

• Lack of consent or reciprocity

• Intrusiveness

  • Manifests as unwanted attention, invasion of privacy, and disregard for personal space or autonomy

Common ORI situations involve unrequited love between:

• Acquaintances

• Former relational partners

  • One person wants the relationship to continue

• One person wanting a platonic friendship to turn romantic

examples of ORI behaviors

• Repeated calls and/or texts

• Repeated social media posts

• Repeatedly asking for another chance

• Watching from a distance

• Making exaggerated statements of affection

severe:

• Invading one’s home

• Damaging property

• Causing physical harm

motivations for ORI

ORIs may stem from feelings of infatuation, obsession and belief that a relationship is meant to be, despite evidence to the contrary

• They can also be driven by a desire for control, possessiveness, or a need for validation

impact of ORI

• Fear, anxiety, stress, and a sense of helplessness or vulnerability

• Can interfere with their ability to feel safe and secure in their own lives

reasons for ORI

1. Relational scripts, particularly those regarding the establishment of romantic/sexual relationships, often idealized and reward persistence

2. Indirect or ambiguous communication

• It can be very difficult to tell another person you are not interested in them when they are clearly interested in you

  • In most instances we don’t want to hurt another person’s feelings, so we use indirect or ambiguous communication - which may be misinterpreted 

    • “This person is playing hard to get”

      • Another cultural script that may encourage ORI

Unrequited love can cause an individual to fixate on a desired person and “justify” (in their own minds) the use of unhealthy pursuit strategies

flirting behaviors can turn into ORI behaviors if

• The flirtee repeatedly indicates they aren’t interested 

• The flirtee repeatedly does not reciprocate the flirting behaviors

• The flirter feels they have to work hard to get the other person’s attention

relational goal pursuit theory

theory that explains why ORI behaviors occur

Relational Goal Pursuit Theory reasons

1. People expend energy to develop or re-initiate relationships to the extent that they perceive a relationship is desirable and attainable 

2. When a relationship is perceived to be unattainable, people abandon their original goal and seek an alternative

   You like someone but they tell you they are not so you go for someone else - this is healthy

3. ORI behaviors are most likely when people continue to believe a relationship is attainable even though it is not

mental links within ORIs

• links the desired relationship to exaggerated feelings of happiness and self worth

  • “I will never be happy unless they go out with me”

  • “I know I am a good person if they go out with me”

  • produces exaggerated negative feelings toward failing to “win” the other person over

    • “I am worthless unless they go out with me”

  • discourages people from stopping their ORI behaviors and tend to mentally reinforce the importance of a relationship with the other person 

investment model of relationships - maintaining behavior

Predicts that level of commitment helps to buffer relationships against the effects of transgressions 

level of commitiment involves

satisfaction, investments, alternatives

satisfaction - part of level of commitment

• Rewards, costs, outcomes, and comparison levels

  • Outcomes: reward-cost ratio

  • Comparison level: how rewarding or costly you expect your relationship to be relative to your perception of other relationships 

investments - part of level of commitment

• Unrecoverable inputs that individuals deposit into relationships

  • Intrinsic investments: resources like time and effort - intangible

  • Extrinsic investments: resources developed over course of relationship - possessions, social networks - likely tangible 

High investment (both types) predict commitment - much more to lose if relationship ends

alternatives - part of level of commitment

• Considering one’s relational options

  • Would you be better off with someone else or single?

• Perception of poor alternatives predicts commitment and good alternatives predicts less commitment

Commitment is predicted by:

• High satisfaction

• High investment

• Poor quality of alternatives 

pro relationship behaviors

committed couples are more likely to engage in these behaviors - used intentionally to maintain a relationship 

pro relationship behaviors include

1. Deciding to remain

• Commitment predicts making the choice to not exit a relationship after transgression have taken place

2. Accommodating the parter

• Commitment predicts making choice to resist engaging in negative reciprocity

3. Derogating alternatives

• Commitment predicts will actively find fatal faults with other potential partners

4. Being willing to make sacrifices

• Commitment predicts making choice about one’s time, money, career, and living situation with the relationship in mind

5. Perceiving relationship superiority

• Commitment predicts that couples choose to believe that their relationship is better than others’ relationships

relational redefinition

Instead of reconciling, some former romantic partners redefine their relationship 

• Spouses become co-parents

• A romantic relationship is redefined as a friendship 

~12% regard themselves as good friends 5 years after the divorce 

Friendship is more likely if the divorce was non-adversarial (adversarial around children or resources)

when romantic partners become friends

Most dating couples do not continue any type of relationship after breaking up

Among those who do remain friends:

• Around 60% showed a pattern of relationship decline over time (with commitment to the friendship declining in the months after the breakup)

• About 21% of ex couples become better friends over time 

Former romantic couples are more likely to be successful in transitioning to friendship if they:

• Engage in reflective talk

• Realize that they can be happy just benign friends

• Exchange social support

• Communicate forgiveness for actions that occurred when they were a couple

17 year panel survey

Limitation was that they were only heterosexual couples 

About 52% got divorced!

main reasons couples get divorced:

1. Infidelity (21.6% of divorces)

• Sexual infidelity

• Emotional infidelity 

2. Incompatibility (19.2% of divorces)

• “Birds of a feather” v “opposites attract”

3. Alcohol or drug abuse (10.6% of divorces)

• Violence

• Legal problems 

Something consistent in literature the satisfaction in their marriage after kids goes down until the kids move out 

communication patterns that predict dissolution

1. Withdrawal (associated with the demand-withdraw pattern)

• Lack of supportiveness

• Lack of listening

• Infrequent time spent together 

2. Negative communication

• Unconstructive criticism, use of negative conflict styles 

• Frequency of conflict does not predict level of satisfaction, but conflict style does 

3. Lack of verbal and nonverbal intimacy

• Low levels of disclosure and touch

4. Gottman’s four horsemen of the apocalypse 

5. Abusive communication

• Name calling, insults, physical violence 

why people stay in abusive relationships

1. Financial dependence

• Perceived or real

2. Family history of violence

• “This is how marriages are”

3. Psychological variables

• “It is my fault” or “I do not deserve better than this”

intergeneration transmission of divorce

Data supported the idea that children of divorced parents are more likely to get divorced themselves. More likely if:

• Both partners are from divorced parents

• Divorce occurred before either partner was younger than age 12

Children of divorced parents may be…

1. Exposed to poor models of dyadic behavior and communication

• May not learn skills and attitudes that facilitate successful functioning in marital roles

2. Predisposed to develop traits that exacerbate relationship tension

• Issues with trust, commitment

duck’s process model of dissolution

Focuses on communication processes that occur prior to, during, or after breakups 

Stage model has the limitation that not all relationships go through stages

intrapsychic, dyadic, social, grave dressing, resurrection

intrapsychic - duck’s process model of dissolution

• Triggered by relational dissatisfaction or discomfort

  • There’s something wrong but partners keep it to themselves. Rumination occurs

• Involves:

  • Mentally weighing costs and rewards of relationships

  • Withdrawal, being secretive, and contemplation

  • Quality of communication with partner is going down

dyadic - duck’s process model of dissolution

• Presentation of dissatisfaction to partner

  • Arguments and discussions with partner about what is wrong

    • Negotiate and reconcile differences

    • If successful, process stops here

    • Or, discussing arguments may lead to realization that the relationship is not worth saving -> onto phase 3

social - duck’s process model of dissolution

• Couple “goes public” about the problems in their relationship

  • Social networks find out about the relationship problems 

• Involves:

  • Seeking support from social network

  • Complaining about partner to others

  • Face saving efforts (telling one’s side of the story)

  • Preparing the social network for a possible breakup

grave dressing - duck’s process model of dissolution

• Focus on coping with breakup in a socially acceptable way

  • Partner creates an acceptable story about their love and loss 

• Involves:

  • Developing and refining the “break up story” for different audiences

  • More face saving communication (often differs for the initiator vs. the dumpee)