CMN 120 Lecture Notes - Dr. Virginia Hamilton PDF

Preview

Summary

Dr. Virginia Hamilton...

Description

12/2 Conflict cont. ● Positive approaches ○ Accounts ■ People can also help hurtful situations by providing “accounts” ■ Explanations or justifications for one’s behavior. They help to answer the question of “why” did so-and-so do such-and-such ■ Accounts enable the speaker to frame events in a way that help shared meaning ■ Accounts enable the hearer to understand why someone acted the way that they did; this enables the one who feels violated to “move on”. It ultimately can help people to forgive ○ Argumentativeness ■ Refers to a conflict style that focuses on logical argument and reasoning ■ People with an argumentative style confront conflict directly by recognizing issues of disagreement, backing up claims with evidence and reasoning ■ Those who have this style don’t have to resort to name-calling or other negative tactics ■ The opposite of communication skills deficit ○ Behavioral Complaints ■ This involves providing very specific descriptions of the behaviors that were perceived by you that you believe “caused” you to get upset ■ Don’t use evaluative generalizations; instead explain the what, when, and how of the inciting concrete episode that led to the upset ■ These are complaints that are concretely and specifically explained. They focus on the behaviors of the other person as opposed to attacking the person. Instead of expressing personal criticisms, it is recommended to use behavioral complaints. ■ Best way to move away from frustrating attributional arguments ○ Calming down ■ The best way to avoid engaging in hurtful messages and negative reciprocity is to take time away from the other to calm down. ■ People often say what they do not mean when they are “emotionally flooded” so calming down reduces the impulse to “fight” ○ Accommodating ■ The accommodation principle: people have a tendency to retaliate when their partner engages in destructive behavior ■ Accommodation occurs when people are able to overcome this initial tendency and engage in cooperative rather than uncooperative communication to maintain their relationships ● Couples in satisfying, committed relationships are more likely to

○

engage in accommodation than couples in uncommitted or dissatisfying relationships ● When people accommodate successfully, this typically prompts a pattern of positive reciprocity. Accommodating is not the same as yielding Reciprocal positivity ■ When both partners engage in cooperative strategies

Ending Relationships ● The knowledge that relationships end, often painfully, prevents some people from developing meaningful relationships ● Avoiding relationships prevents people from experiencing the deepest involvements and emotions humans can have ● People become deeply enmeshed in their close relationships ○ Relationships exist in a web of close ties, emotional involvements, financial arrangements, sexual relations, friendship networks, possessions, memories, identities, families, and sometimes offspring ○ * what makes breaking up particularly difficult? ○ Missed note here ● Signs of disengagement ○ A number of scholars have suggested that disengagement is one of the key mechanisms through which initially satisfying relationships become unstable and at risk for termination ○ Emotional indifference: lack of strong positive or negative emotions directed toward the partner ○ Cognitive disconnection: viewing the partner as unresponsive, detached, or different from oneself; psychologically distancing oneself from the partner, and paying less attention to the partner ○ Behavioral distancing: reducing levels of communication and involvement in the person’s life and interacting in less intimate ways ● General pathways to relational endings ○ Individual choice: bilateral breakups are very rare. It takes two people to develop a relationship, but only one to end it. ○ Atrophy: withering away. Usually occurs in friendships, rather than romantic relationships. ○ Separation: because geographical closeness and repeated interaction lead to liking and intimacy, separation has the opposite effect. ○ Death: widows outnumber widowers 10:1. Having a strong social network is the best source of comfort and support for the bereaved. ● Specific reasons for why people end relationships ○ Withdrawal: feeling a lack of supportiveness, particularly lack of listening from other person ○ Negative communication: dealing with conflict in competitive, destructive ways ○ Lack of openness and intimacy: openness is of particular importance to women

○

●

Lack of similarity: involves differences in personality, attractiveness, interests, beliefs, attitudes, values, interests, religions, socioeconomic, etc. ○ Sexual incompatibility: for women - tenderness, communication, and intimacy were critical parts of sexual satisfaction; for men - physical attraction is primary ○ Autonomy and independence: wanting more time for self and own social network; to further education career; not wanting to be exclusive ○ Interest in someone else: and having attractive options ○ Boredom: at the top of the list for both sexes. Some people view the best part of relationships is the joy, excitement, fire, etc. When that isn’t there, boredom results ○ Money: few relational problems revolve around how much money a couple makes but around money management and values surrounding spending and saving. ○ Women’s equality issues: inequity in tending to “the second shift” - childcare and home-making chores ○ Alcohol, drug abuse, or addiction ○ Social networks: when friends or families disapprove of one’s partner puts pressure on the couple ○ Chronic dissatisfaction: temporary dissatisfaction usually prompts couples to work to repair, but as those continue without resolution, people become unhappy ○ Disillusionment: related to chronic dissatisfaction; happens when the “rose colored glasses” of the earlier periods turn into disappointment, loss of emotional attachment, and decreases in affection and caring Three models of the disengagement process ○ Duck’s phase model ■ Breakdown: relationship dissatisfaction ■ Phase 1: The intrapsychic phase (thinking about one’s dissatisfaction with the relationship) ■ Crossing a threshold… ■ Phase 2: The dyadic phase (addressing the dissatisfaction with the partner) ■ Crossing a threshold… ■ Phase 3: The social phase (telling other people that the relationship is over) ■ Crossing a threshold… ■ Phase 4: The grave-dressing phase (emotional repair and relational realignment must occur) ○ Knapp’s reversal hypothesis (or five stages of pulling apart) ■ Differentiating - emphasizing differences ■ Circumscribing - withholding self-disclosures; losing connection; distancing. The stage is referred to as “the return of the stranger” ■ Stagnating - communication becomes tense and awkward, seen as unproductive and unpleasant. (What’s the point?) some couples who reach this stage find ways to revive it. Others give up hope and move to

the next stage. Avoiding - physical separation by actually moving away or by creating schedules with minimal overlapping time. The goal is to achieve as much physical and psychological distance as possible. ■ Terminating - end contact and proclaim that the relationship is over (at least in the romantic way). ○ Catastrophe theory ■ This theory is an alternative to the stage models of relational disengagement. ■ Critics of stage models believe that stages are artificial conceptualizations that fail to capture the actual nature of relational dissolution. ● A lot of relationships do not go through circumscribing or stagnation and just go to avoiding and termination. ■ The catastrophe model suggests that relationships do not gradually unwind through stages of dissolution, but instead are characterized by “sudden death”. ● There are always signs of an impending relational catastrophe but often people fail to see them or deny them. ● This theory posits that events are discontinuous rather than following linear patterns. 15 Strategies for Breaking Up ○ Unilateral and Indirect (5 of them) ○ Unilateral and Direct (7 of them) ○ Bilateral and Indirect (1 of them) ○ Bilateral and Direct (2 of them) ■ Most negative and most positive ■ The blame game (most negative) ■ The negotiated farewell (most positive) ● Used by couples who have been together a long time but realize their relationships can’t be resolved and happy. Both parties are willing to be fair and want to leave the relationship “well” Relational Redefinition ○ Some romantic relationships are able to shift from a romance to a friendship. ○ If there is a great deal of mutual respect and admiration between relational partners, a friendship may serve to preserve the relationship while recognizing it does not have romantic potential any longer ○ Some former spouses describe their post-divorce friendships as “perfect pals”. This is true for former spouses with children as well as without them Negative outcomes of breakups ○ Negative emotions ■ There is very little pain on earth like the pain of a long-term personal relationship that is falling apart. - Duck ○ Loneliness ○ Financial consequences ■

●

●

●

●

●

○ Effects on children (see textbook) ○ Health consequences Positive outcomes of breakups ○ Increased happiness ○ Relief to be out of a bad or dangerous relationship ○ Sometimes, a breakup can provide relief from ambiguity or conflict ○ Not infrequently, a person moves onto a more satisfying relationship ○ Personal growth (most commonly cited outcome) ○ Personal positives, like increased self-confidence and autonomy Top 10 Reasons for Breakups in Dating Relationships ○ Becoming bored, differences in interests, desire to be independent, differences in background, conflicting ideas about sex, conflicting ideas about marriage, living too far apart, interest in someone else, differences in intelligence, pressure from parents

11/25 Conflict ● Six styles of conflict ○ Two variables ■ Direct vs. indirect ■ Cooperative vs. uncooperative ○ Competitive (direct and uncooperative) ○ Compromise (direct and mildly cooperative) ○ Collaborative (direct and very cooperative) ○ Indirect fighting (indirect and uncooperative) ○ Avoiding (indirect and mildly cooperative) ○ Yielding (indirect and cooperative) ■ The chilling effect - sometimes people yield, not because they truly are okay with yielding. They know they can’t win no matter what they say, so they yield (fear). ● Negative conflict patterns ○ Demand-withdraw: when one person demands, the other withdraws ○ Negative reciprocity: back and forth engagement in negative conflict behaviors; a pattern whereby aggression begets aggression. Once one person uses competitive or indirect fighting, the other person is likely to follow suit. ○ Gunnysacking: occurs when people store up old grievances and then dump them on their partner during a conflict. Rather than discussing each issue when it first surfaces, issues are placed in a metaphorical gunnysack and then are all presented at once. ○ Kitchen-sinking: similar to above, however instead of storing up complaints, people rehash their old arguments when they get into a new argument ○ Button-pushing: when feeling hurt and uncertain people may purposefully say or do something they know will be especially hurtful to the partner. The key is that it

is known that your words or behavior will severely bother the partner. Devaluation: the most intense hurt feelings when a person’s words or actions communicate devaluation. Devaluation involves feeling unappreciated or unimportant. We can feel devaluation at an individual or relational level. ○ Empty threats ■ Suggests you will do something that you do not really intend to do: “I can’t stand this anymore, I want a divorce.” ● They typically have no intention of terminating the relationship ■ Two negative consequences: ● Not following through on threats makes the “bluffer” lose face and credibility ● May cause a process of “psychological” separation in the other person, moving the idea of life without that person to the forefront of one’s mind ■ These are so threatening to relationships that marriage counselors urge spouses to never use these kinds of empty threats ○ Meta-complaints: complaining about a partner’s complaints. Results in being angry at someone because they aren’t happy about something you do. ○ Mind-reading: occurs when people assume that they know their partner’s feelings, thoughts, motives, and intentions. We often observe another person’s behavior and then make assumptions about what is going on in their mind. Nobody wants to be told what they are thinking or feelings. Only we know what we are thinking and feeling. Mind-reading tends to heighten the conflict. ○ Four horsemen of the apocalypse: ■ Criticism/complaints ● Personal characteristics, performance, personal appearance, meta-complaints ■ Defensiveness ● Refusing to let anything the other person says “sink in”. Deflects all negative feedback ■ Contempt/disgust ● Showing hostility and a complete disregard for the other’s “character” ■ Stonewalling ● Refusing to speak to or walking out on the other person Three explanations for negative conflict patterns ○ Emotional flooding ■ Feeling attacked by another causes a quick flood of negative emotions which results in a fight or flight response. Button-pushing and empty threats worsen the situation ○ Communication skill deficits ■ Involves not being able to effectively voice one’s point of view without anger, blame, and reason ○ Making attributions ○

●

■

■

■

Attributions are “a perceptual process of assigning reasons or causes to another’s behavior”. People are especially likely to make attributions about negative behavior Three specific types of attributions ● People attribute a person’s behavior to personal vs situational causes ○ Personal is more competitive, situational is more cooperative ● People make attributions about behavior being stable vs unstable. ○ In other words, is the behavior common and predictable or unusual? ● People make attributions about how global vs specific the cause of the behavior is. ○ The more global a cause is, the more behaviors it refers to Meta-attributions are attributions about attributions. These, too, intensify negative conflict

11/20 Forgiveness ● Forgiveness plays a critical role in repairing a relationship after a transgression (infidelity, deception, violence, hurtful messages, chronic bad behavior) occurs ● The paradoxical quality of forgiveness ○ “The forgiver gives up the resentment, to which he or she has a right, and gives the gift of compassion, to which the offender has no right.” - Freedman & Enright 1996 ○ Forgiveness says: ■ I no longer hold this against you ■ I won’t keep bringing this up to you ■ I won’t talk about this behind your back ● Forgiveness is a complicated process that does not occur immediately ● Forgiveness is a state of motivational change that involves inhibiting relationally destructive behavior and instead behaving constructively toward the person who committed the offense ● Forgiveness is contingent not only on the hurt person’s change in motivation but also on the offending person’s change in behavior. If a person does not believe that her or his partner will change the hurtful behavior, the person is unlikely to be forgiving. ● When people do not forgive, they tend to engage in more vengeful communication (such as arguing and name-calling), escalation (breaking up or dating others, or avoidance). ● A motivational shift toward forgiveness and positive communication is more likely if: ○ A sincere apology is offered ○ The seriousness of the transgression does not prohibit forgiveness

●

○ The relationship is of high quality prior to the transgression Famous quotes: ○ Holding a grudge is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die. ○ Forgiveness is not something we do for other people. We do it for ourselves to get well and move on. ○ Forgiveness does not change the past, but it does change the future. ○ Forgiveness is a path toward inner peace.

Conflict ● Conflict is defined as a disagreement between two interdependent people who perceive that they have incompatible goals ● The four I’s of conflict ○ Interdependence - the breeding ground for conflict ○ Inevitable - where there is interdependence, there is conflict ○ Incompatible goals - perceived by the two individuals ○ Interaction - helps us work through conflict, or makes conflict worse ● Conflict can have two outcomes ○ Destructive: Trying to hurt the other, trying to win, not trying to learn from or improve the situation ○ Constructive: Solves problems, creates new and better ways of being together, develops mutual empathy, reinforces commitment, increases satisfaction ○ The way partners manage conflict is a better predictor of relational satisfaction than is the experience of conflict itself ○ Learning to manage conflict constructively is imperative for having long-term satisfying relationships ● Different types of relationship/conflict topics ○ Parent/child - control issues (age two, adolescence) ○ Siblings - competition over shared resources, such as possessions, food space, parental attention, etc. ○ Roommates - privacy, chores ○ Friends - sometimes competition of “in-group” issues; less conflict than in other relationship types ○ Romantic - criticism, finances, and household chores ○ Most conflicts in one’s life occurs in romantic relationships. Stats = 1-3 disagreements per week, with 1-2 per month being particularly unpleasant ■ Unhappy couples experience 5.4 conflicts over a 5 day period ● Friendship Dialectics (Baxter) ○ There are four dialectical principles that need to be managed in friendship communication ○ A dialectic is a tension between two or more contradictory elements in a system ○ Friends don’t always agree on which end of the dialect to be on ○ Four principles: ■ The freedom to be dependent vs. the freedom to be independent ■ Using the friendship for affection vs. using it for instrumentality/utility

■ ■

(favors) Sometimes we feel judgmental toward a friend vs believe that friendship should be about acceptance Sometimes we think we should tell our friends the truth about how we think or feel about something (expressiveness) vs sometimes we want to protect our friends from potentially harmful information

11/18 Privacy, Secrets, and Deception ● Communication Privacy Management Theory (Petronio) ○ This theory helps explain how individuals cope with the need to maintain privacy boundaries ○ Privacy can be about physical space and property issues, as well as information ○ With ownership over space, property, and information comes the belief that we have the right to control who has access to it ○ So people set up boundary structures. When boundary structures are violated, boundary turbulence results ○ Successful boundary management requires cooperation between the people involved ○ Continual management of boundaries enables people to balance their needs for privacy with their coexisting needs for life integration and need for connection ● Deception ○ An intentional act in which senders knowingly transmit messages to foster a false belief or interpretation by the receiver ○ Deception is viewed as a major relational transgression that often leads to feelings of betrayal and distrust ○ Many studies have revealed that it is highly likely that you or someone you are talking to will engage in some form of deception ■ In one study of conversational logs, only ⅓ of conversations participants recorded were completely truthful ■ The other ⅔ were characterized by some degree of lying, exaggeration, intentional concealment, etc ○ During a single interaction, people are more likely to tell lies to strangers and acquaintances than close relational partners ○ However, because people interact more often with close relational partners, most lies are told in the context of relationships ○ The most lying occurs in romantic relationships. Moreover, romantic partners appear to “reserve their most serious lies for each other.” ○ Motives for deception ■ Partner-focused: used to avoid hurting the partner, helping the partner maintain his or h...