•
Psychology 327
•
Questions
How do partners in the happiest relationships communicate with one another?
Why does so much communication break down?
How can couples best resolve conflict?
Why do verbal fights sometimes turn into aggression?
•
Plan for Today
Part 1: Conflict
Part 2: Interpersonal Violence
•
Conflict
•
What is Conflict?
•
When one person’s motives, goals, beliefs, opinions, or behaviour are incompatible
with their partner
•
Conflict is Inevitable
Conflict is inevitable in close relationships because:
•Any two people will occasionally differ in their moods and preferences.
•There are certain tensions that will always cause some strain.
•There are opposing motivations that can never be completely satisfied because they
contradict each other.
•Conflict is Inevitable
There are opposing motivations between:
•Personal autonomy and close connection to others
•Do you pursue intimacy or freedom?
•Openness versus closedness
•Do you pursue honesty, candor, and authenticity, or privacy, discretion, and
restraint??
•Conflict is Inevitable
There are opposing motivations between:
•Stability versus change
•Do you pursue novelty and excitement or familiarity and comfort?
•Integration with friends & family versus separation from friends and family
•Do you pursue close connections with family and friends or devote more time
and energy to your relationship?
•How Frequent is Relationship Conflict?
•Every 3.6 minutes between 4-year olds and their mothers!
•Adolescents report seven disagreements each day
•Dating couples report 2.3 conflicts per week.
•Spouses report 7 memorable “differences of opinion” every 2 weeks, and one or two
“unpleasant disagreements” each month.
•Who Has the Most Conflict?
Personality – High neuroticism & low agreeableness have most conflict
Attachment – Securely attached people have fewer conflicts and manage conflicts
better when they do occur.= more conflict
Similarity – The less similar partners are to each other the more conflict they
experience.
Sleep – People are grumpy and irritable when they’ve slept poorly, and more conflict
occurs.
Stage of life – Older couples have fewer conflicts than younger couples do.
Alcohol – more to be said about this . . .
•Participants completed an online diary for 14 days
•Those high in attachment anxiety
○Reported more conflict
○Reported more conflict escalation
○Found conflict more hurtful
•Who Has the Most Conflict?
Personality – High neuroticism & low agreeableness have most conflict
Attachment – Securely attached people have fewer conflicts and manage conflicts
better when they do occur.= more conflict
Similarity – The less similar partners are to each other the more conflict they
experience.
Sleep – People are grumpy and irritable when they’ve slept poorly, and more conflict
occurs.
Stage of life – Older couples have fewer conflicts than younger couples do.
Alcohol – more to be said about this . . .
•Conflict and Alcohol
•Intoxication exacerbates conflict
•Adding alcohol to a frustrating disagreement is a bit like adding fuel to a fire.
Consider these data …
The rate of violence in marriage is six times higher when a spouse drinks heavily than
when he/she drinks moderately or not at all.
Marital violence is between four to six times more likely if the husband is an alcoholic
than if he is not.
And these…
Both boys and girls who bully others are almost five times more likely to report
alcohol use than those who do not bully.
Dating aggression is up to five times more likely among adolescents who use alcohol
compared with those who do not.
Experimental Study
•Male undergraduates in heterosexual relationships were asked to describe a current
conflict in their relationships
•“Drunk” group: drank vodka to Ontario’s legal limit (.08)
• Control group: consumed drink that smelled like alcohol but contained basically no
alcohol
•Asked to evaluate conflict they just described
Drunk Drama Queens
•Conflict
Instigation
Conflict communication
Conflict resolution
•Instigating Conflict
•Criticism - Being unjustly demeaning or derogatory toward our partners
•Illegitimate demands - Making requests that seem excessive and unjust
•Rebuffing - Rejecting a partner’s appeals for help or support
•Cumulative annoyances - Relatively trivial events that become irritating with
repetition
Think about the last time you had a conflict with someone. How did the conflict start?
A. Negatively (e.g., sarcastic remark)
B. Positively (e.g., calm discussion)
•Beginning a conversation in a negative way or with an accusation
•96% of the time, a harsh start up results in poor outcomes
Instigation
Conflict communication
Conflict resolution
Responses to conflict may vary by
□Constructive vs. destructive
□Active vs. passive
•Called “partner-regulation”
○Attempts to change partners’ undesirable behavior
○Enacted to enhance relationship (not be mean!)
•How do partners regulate each other?
•What distinguishes effective vs. ineffective partner-regulation attempts?
Partner-regulation strategies also vary by (Surprise!):
□Valence
®Positive vs. negative
□Directness
®Direct vs. indirect
Rational reasoning
○Presenting accurate information
□Pros and cons
□Consequences
□Suggest solutions
○Explain point of view
•Middle Stages of Conflict
Soft positive
○“Soften” persuasion attempts (e.g., minimize problem, point out good
characteristics of partner)
○Validate partner’s views
○Express positive affect (e.g., humor)
Coercion
○Derogate partner, e.g., criticize, insult, make fun of in hurtful way
○Indicate negative consequences, e.g., threaten punishment
○Express negative affect, e.g., yelling, cursing
Autocracy
○Make demands of a partner
○Exert superiority, invalidate partner, e.g., patronizing, condescending,
interrupting, rejecting partner’s arguments
•Middle Stages of Conflict
Manipulation
○Trying to make the partner feel guilty
○Appealing to partner’s love and concern
Supplication
○Using emotional expressions of hurt
○Debasing the self
○Emphasizing negative consequences of partner’s behavior for self
•Short-term benefits of positive (direct and indirect) strategies
○More positive affect
○Greater perceived success
•Long-term benefits of direct (positive and negative) strategies
○Greater reduction of problems/problematic behavior
○More stable satisfaction
•Negative-direct strategies are associated with greater declines in satisfaction among
couples with minor problems.
•But were associated with less steep declines in satisfaction among couples with more
major problems.
Mary is upset that she returned from work to find John playing video games. What is
Mary’s best bet to change John’s behavior immediately?
A. positive direct: calmly explain that she’d like him to help around the house more
B. negative direct: shout at John until he gets off the couch
C. negative indirect: start banging pots and pans in the kitchen and hope he’ll come help
with dinner
Instigation
Conflict communication
Conflict resolution
○Separation: end relationship without resolving conflict
○Domination: one partner gets their way, other gives in
○Compromise: both reduce demands, reach mutually acceptable solution
○Integrative agreements: satisfy both goals through creativity
○Structural improvement: improvements to the relationship
•Break
•Conflict
John Gottman
Gottmann’s Approach
•Brings couples into the lab
•Make them fight by having them discuss a contentious issue
•Unobtrusively record behaviour, facial expressions, and physiological responses
4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse
Criticism
○Highlighting your partner’s personality “defects”
Contempt
○Speaking “down” to your partner (superiority)
Defensiveness
○Warding off criticism through counter attack
Stonewalling
○Ignoring or shutting out your partner (withdrawing)
•Attacking personality or character rather than airing disagreements by focusing on
specific behavior
“I’m upset that you didn’t take out the trash.”
versus
“I can’t believe you didn’t take out the trash.
You are so irresponsible!”
•One step up from criticism – involves tearing down or being insulting towards partner,
showing disrespect and disgust.
•e.g., rolling eyes, sneering, or using sarcastic put-downs
“You are so stupid, you couldn’t even find your own backside with two hands.
•Denying responsibility, making excuses, or cross-complaining
•Natural response to ‘attack,’ but engenders feelings of tension and prevents partners
from hearing each other
“I did not cheat on you, we were on a break!
And you were the one who left me in the first place!”
•Refusal to respond – this is a withdrawal from the conflict, the relationship, and from
the partner
•e.g., ignoring the partner, leaving the room, picking up book, turning on computer,
etc.
•Even in good relationships, the horsemen might be present from time to time.
•The key is to learn better ways of dealing with tension and conflict so that they are
not needed!
•When couples feel safe and respected, even in the midst of a conflict, the horsemen
are less likely to be present!
•And there are cures for these destructive processes.
• Antidote to criticism: make a complaint
○XYZ statements: When you do X in situation Y, I feel Z.
• Antidote to defensiveness: openly acknowledge our part in messing things up
• Antidote to contempt: fondness and admiration of the person’s good qualities.
○Express appreciation daily, even for small things
• Antidote to stonewalling: Time-out, self-soothe, and come back to the argument later;
schedule meetings to air grievances
Negative affect reciprocity
Demand/Withdraw Pattern
In heterosexual couples
•60% (woman), 30% (man), 10% (both)
Gender differences due to:
•Expressivity norms
•Social structural hypothesis
○Men traditionally have more power and are more satisfied with the status
quo
○Women have lower power and want things to change
•Conflict is an inevitable part of close relationships
•What we fight about isn’t nearly as important as how we fight
•The outcome of conflict depends on important factors
•Certain conflict patterns are maladaptive
•Plan for Today
Part 1: Conflict
Part 2: Interpersonal Violence
•Tough Stuff
•Please keep in mind while we discuss this content that 1/3 women and ¼ men will
experience relationship violence in their lives.
•Our goal today is to discuss the psychology related to such experiences. What can we
learn from applying theories and concepts we already know? How can we
systematically study relationship violence?
•You may step out if you need to take a break.
•Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
•Definition: behavior intended to cause physical harm to a romantic partner who
doesn’t want to be harmed
•Perpetration rates
•Approximately 1 in 6 married couples in the U.S. experiences at least one act of
IPV every year
•History
Advocacy perspective: sought to understand aggression against women
•Data come from police reports, statistics from domestic violence shelters, hospital
intake
•Men perpetrate 90% of IPV acts
•Rare (~1% annually)
Family sociological perspective: looked at where aggression occurred more broadly
•Data come from studies examining “family problems” or “relationship conflict”
•Women perpetrate IPV at least as often as men (~16% annually)
•Two Types of Couple Violence
• Intimate terrorism: when one partner uses violence as a tool to control and oppress
the other
•Violence may be just one tactic in a pattern of threats, isolation, and economic
control.
• Situational (common) couple violence: from specific angry arguments that get out of
hand
•Intimate Terrorism
•Has goal of dominating and intimidating the partner
•Most commonly engaged in by men against women
•Best predicted by personality traits and background of aggressor
•People who engage in intimate terrorism in one romantic relationship are likely
to engage in it in subsequent relationships as well.
•The victim may ultimately engage in violent resistance (rare)
•Cycle of Intimate Terrorism
•Intimate Terrorism
•Male spouse abusers feel superior to women and believe that their aggression is a
legitimate response.
•Most maintain that they are not “real abusers.”
•Most battered women end up leaving their partners - about one third stay.
•Those women who stay do not think that leaving will improve their quality of life
because they fear:
•poverty
•retaliation from their partner
•homelessness/shelters
•Situational Couple Violence
•Conflict interaction that gets out of hand and turns physical
•57% of engaged couples, but 16-19% of married couples
•Pushing, grabbing or shoving most common
•Men and women equally likely to engage in it
•But women are 6 times as likely as men to be injured
•May be unilateral or bilateral
•Situational Couple Violence
•Best predicted by situational factors, rather than personality
•People may engage in it in one relationship, but not others
•Alcohol is a contributing factor
•Partners may not report it as a problem
•Only 6% of wives seeking therapy list physical aggression as most important
problem, yet 57% report aggression in interviews and 67% on Conflict Tactics
Scale
•Conflict Tactics Scale
•Summary: Comparing 2 Types of IPV
Intimate Terrorism
○Grew out of interest in feminist issues
○Data from shelters, hospitals, police records
○Violence caused by patriarchal institutions that give men the right to
control “their” women
○Over 90% male
○Frequent violence
○Violence escalates
•Explanations for IPV
•Explanations for IPV
•Explanations for IPV
•Explanations for IPV
•I3 (“I-Cubed”) Theory and SCV
The starting point: People are violent when their impulses to aggress exceed
their restraint of this impulse.
•I3 Theory
•Instigating triggers: discrete partner behaviours that normatively trigger an urge to
aggress
•Impelling influences: dispositional or situational factors that psychologically prepare
the individual to experience a strong urge to aggress when encountering this
instigator in this context
•Inhibiting influences: dispositional or situational factors that increase likelihood that
people will override this urge to aggress
•I3 Examples
•Instigating triggers: provocation, insults, conflict, betrayal, rejection
•Impelling influences: violent family of origin, neuroticism, mismatched attachment
styles, work stress
•Inhibiting influences: exposure to egalitarian norms, high conscientiousness, executive
control, high satisfaction/commitment, sobriety
•I3Theory (“I-Cubed”)
•Voodoo Doll Study
•35-day daily diary study
•I3variables
○Instigator: Provocation (daily)
○Impellor: Dispositional physical aggressiveness
○Inhibitor: Executive control (Stroop)
•Voodoo doll task
•Results
•Longitudinal Marriage Study
•72 newlywed couples studied over 6-month period
•I3variables
○Instigator (proneness): partner’s neuroticism
□Ex: “I get irritated easily”
○Impellor: Trait anger
○(Dis)inhibitor: Life stress
•Actual IPV perpetration over the past 6 mos (from CTS)
○Ex: “Pushed, grabbed, or shoved spouse”
•Results
•Likelihood of Aggression
•In Sum
•Two main types of violence: intimate terrorism and situational couple violence (SCV)
•Studied from two different perspectives: feminist and family violence
•I-cubed theory is useful for understanding SCV
•Resources
On Campus
Health and Counselling Centre
https://www.utm.utoronto.ca/health/
905-828-5255
•Offers personal counselling, group counselling, and psychiatric care to assist students
experiencing a wide range of challenges
In Ontario
Assaulted Women’s Hotline
Hotline: 1-866-0511
Week 9
Thursday, November 8, 2018
11:10 AM
•Psychology 327
•Questions
How do partners in the happiest relationships communicate with one another?
Why does so much communication break down?
How can couples best resolve conflict?
Why do verbal fights sometimes turn into aggression?
•Plan for Today
Part 1: Conflict
Part 2: Interpersonal Violence
•Conflict
•What is Conflict?
•When one person’s motives, goals, beliefs, opinions, or behaviour are incompatible
with their partner
•Conflict is Inevitable
Conflict is inevitable in close relationships because:
•
Any two people will occasionally differ in their moods and preferences.
•
There are certain tensions that will always cause some strain.
•
There are opposing motivations that can never be completely satisfied because they
contradict each other.
•
Conflict is Inevitable
There are opposing motivations between:
•
Personal autonomy and close connection to others
•
Do you pursue intimacy or freedom?
•
Openness versus closedness
•
Do you pursue honesty, candor, and authenticity, or privacy, discretion, and
restraint??
•
Conflict is Inevitable
There are opposing motivations between:
•
Stability versus change
•
Do you pursue novelty and excitement or familiarity and comfort?
•
Integration with friends & family versus separation from friends and family
•
Do you pursue close connections with family and friends or devote more time
and energy to your relationship?
•
How Frequent is Relationship Conflict?
•Every 3.6 minutes between 4-year olds and their mothers!
•Adolescents report seven disagreements each day
•Dating couples report 2.3 conflicts per week.
•Spouses report 7 memorable “differences of opinion” every 2 weeks, and one or two
“unpleasant disagreements” each month.
•Who Has the Most Conflict?
Personality – High neuroticism & low agreeableness have most conflict
Attachment – Securely attached people have fewer conflicts and manage conflicts
better when they do occur.= more conflict
Similarity – The less similar partners are to each other the more conflict they
experience.
Sleep – People are grumpy and irritable when they’ve slept poorly, and more conflict
occurs.
Stage of life – Older couples have fewer conflicts than younger couples do.
Alcohol – more to be said about this . . .
•Participants completed an online diary for 14 days
•Those high in attachment anxiety
○Reported more conflict
○Reported more conflict escalation
○Found conflict more hurtful
•Who Has the Most Conflict?
Personality – High neuroticism & low agreeableness have most conflict
Attachment – Securely attached people have fewer conflicts and manage conflicts
better when they do occur.= more conflict
Similarity – The less similar partners are to each other the more conflict they
experience.
Sleep – People are grumpy and irritable when they’ve slept poorly, and more conflict
occurs.
Stage of life – Older couples have fewer conflicts than younger couples do.
Alcohol – more to be said about this . . .
•Conflict and Alcohol
•Intoxication exacerbates conflict
•Adding alcohol to a frustrating disagreement is a bit like adding fuel to a fire.
Consider these data …
The rate of violence in marriage is six times higher when a spouse drinks heavily than
when he/she drinks moderately or not at all.
Marital violence is between four to six times more likely if the husband is an alcoholic
than if he is not.
And these…
Both boys and girls who bully others are almost five times more likely to report
alcohol use than those who do not bully.
Dating aggression is up to five times more likely among adolescents who use alcohol
compared with those who do not.
Experimental Study
•Male undergraduates in heterosexual relationships were asked to describe a current
conflict in their relationships
•“Drunk” group: drank vodka to Ontario’s legal limit (.08)
• Control group: consumed drink that smelled like alcohol but contained basically no
alcohol
•Asked to evaluate conflict they just described
Drunk Drama Queens
•Conflict
Instigation
Conflict communication
Conflict resolution
•Instigating Conflict
•Criticism - Being unjustly demeaning or derogatory toward our partners
•Illegitimate demands - Making requests that seem excessive and unjust
•Rebuffing - Rejecting a partner’s appeals for help or support
•Cumulative annoyances - Relatively trivial events that become irritating with
repetition
Think about the last time you had a conflict with someone. How did the conflict start?
A. Negatively (e.g., sarcastic remark)
B. Positively (e.g., calm discussion)
•Beginning a conversation in a negative way or with an accusation
•96% of the time, a harsh start up results in poor outcomes
Instigation
Conflict communication
Conflict resolution
Responses to conflict may vary by
□Constructive vs. destructive
□Active vs. passive
•Called “partner-regulation”
○Attempts to change partners’ undesirable behavior
○Enacted to enhance relationship (not be mean!)
•How do partners regulate each other?
•What distinguishes effective vs. ineffective partner-regulation attempts?
Partner-regulation strategies also vary by (Surprise!):
□Valence
®Positive vs. negative
□Directness
®Direct vs. indirect
Rational reasoning
○Presenting accurate information
□Pros and cons
□Consequences
□Suggest solutions
○Explain point of view
•Middle Stages of Conflict
Soft positive
○“Soften” persuasion attempts (e.g., minimize problem, point out good
characteristics of partner)
○Validate partner’s views
○Express positive affect (e.g., humor)
Coercion
○Derogate partner, e.g., criticize, insult, make fun of in hurtful way
○Indicate negative consequences, e.g., threaten punishment
○Express negative affect, e.g., yelling, cursing
Autocracy
○Make demands of a partner
○Exert superiority, invalidate partner, e.g., patronizing, condescending,
interrupting, rejecting partner’s arguments
•Middle Stages of Conflict
Manipulation
○Trying to make the partner feel guilty
○Appealing to partner’s love and concern
Supplication
○Using emotional expressions of hurt
○Debasing the self
○Emphasizing negative consequences of partner’s behavior for self
•Short-term benefits of positive (direct and indirect) strategies
○More positive affect
○Greater perceived success
•Long-term benefits of direct (positive and negative) strategies
○Greater reduction of problems/problematic behavior
○More stable satisfaction
•Negative-direct strategies are associated with greater declines in satisfaction among
couples with minor problems.
•But were associated with less steep declines in satisfaction among couples with more
major problems.
Mary is upset that she returned from work to find John playing video games. What is
Mary’s best bet to change John’s behavior immediately?
A. positive direct: calmly explain that she’d like him to help around the house more
B. negative direct: shout at John until he gets off the couch
C. negative indirect: start banging pots and pans in the kitchen and hope he’ll come help
with dinner
Instigation
Conflict communication
Conflict resolution
○Separation: end relationship without resolving conflict
○Domination: one partner gets their way, other gives in
○Compromise: both reduce demands, reach mutually acceptable solution
○Integrative agreements: satisfy both goals through creativity
○Structural improvement: improvements to the relationship
•Break
•Conflict
John Gottman
Gottmann’s Approach
•Brings couples into the lab
•Make them fight by having them discuss a contentious issue
•Unobtrusively record behaviour, facial expressions, and physiological responses
4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse
Criticism
○Highlighting your partner’s personality “defects”
Contempt
○Speaking “down” to your partner (superiority)
Defensiveness
○Warding off criticism through counter attack
Stonewalling
○Ignoring or shutting out your partner (withdrawing)
•Attacking personality or character rather than airing disagreements by focusing on
specific behavior
“I’m upset that you didn’t take out the trash.”
versus
“I can’t believe you didn’t take out the trash.
You are so irresponsible!”
•One step up from criticism – involves tearing down or being insulting towards partner,
showing disrespect and disgust.
•e.g., rolling eyes, sneering, or using sarcastic put-downs
“You are so stupid, you couldn’t even find your own backside with two hands.
•Denying responsibility, making excuses, or cross-complaining
•Natural response to ‘attack,’ but engenders feelings of tension and prevents partners
from hearing each other
“I did not cheat on you, we were on a break!
And you were the one who left me in the first place!”
•Refusal to respond – this is a withdrawal from the conflict, the relationship, and from
the partner
•e.g., ignoring the partner, leaving the room, picking up book, turning on computer,
etc.
•Even in good relationships, the horsemen might be present from time to time.
•The key is to learn better ways of dealing with tension and conflict so that they are
not needed!
•When couples feel safe and respected, even in the midst of a conflict, the horsemen
are less likely to be present!
•And there are cures for these destructive processes.
• Antidote to criticism: make a complaint
○XYZ statements: When you do X in situation Y, I feel Z.
• Antidote to defensiveness: openly acknowledge our part in messing things up
• Antidote to contempt: fondness and admiration of the person’s good qualities.
○Express appreciation daily, even for small things
• Antidote to stonewalling: Time-out, self-soothe, and come back to the argument later;
schedule meetings to air grievances
Negative affect reciprocity
Demand/Withdraw Pattern
In heterosexual couples
•60% (woman), 30% (man), 10% (both)
Gender differences due to:
•Expressivity norms
•Social structural hypothesis
○Men traditionally have more power and are more satisfied with the status
quo
○Women have lower power and want things to change
•Conflict is an inevitable part of close relationships
•What we fight about isn’t nearly as important as how we fight
•The outcome of conflict depends on important factors
•Certain conflict patterns are maladaptive
•Plan for Today
Part 1: Conflict
Part 2: Interpersonal Violence
•Tough Stuff
•Please keep in mind while we discuss this content that 1/3 women and ¼ men will
experience relationship violence in their lives.
•Our goal today is to discuss the psychology related to such experiences. What can we
learn from applying theories and concepts we already know? How can we
systematically study relationship violence?
•You may step out if you need to take a break.
•Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
•Definition: behavior intended to cause physical harm to a romantic partner who
doesn’t want to be harmed
•Perpetration rates
•Approximately 1 in 6 married couples in the U.S. experiences at least one act of
IPV every year
•History
Advocacy perspective: sought to understand aggression against women
•Data come from police reports, statistics from domestic violence shelters, hospital
intake
•Men perpetrate 90% of IPV acts
•Rare (~1% annually)
Family sociological perspective: looked at where aggression occurred more broadly
•Data come from studies examining “family problems” or “relationship conflict”
•Women perpetrate IPV at least as often as men (~16% annually)
•Two Types of Couple Violence
• Intimate terrorism: when one partner uses violence as a tool to control and oppress
the other
•Violence may be just one tactic in a pattern of threats, isolation, and economic
control.
• Situational (common) couple violence: from specific angry arguments that get out of
hand
•Intimate Terrorism
•Has goal of dominating and intimidating the partner
•Most commonly engaged in by men against women
•Best predicted by personality traits and background of aggressor
•People who engage in intimate terrorism in one romantic relationship are likely
to engage in it in subsequent relationships as well.
•The victim may ultimately engage in violent resistance (rare)
•Cycle of Intimate Terrorism
•Intimate Terrorism
•Male spouse abusers feel superior to women and believe that their aggression is a
legitimate response.
•Most maintain that they are not “real abusers.”
•Most battered women end up leaving their partners - about one third stay.
•Those women who stay do not think that leaving will improve their quality of life
because they fear:
•poverty
•retaliation from their partner
•homelessness/shelters
•Situational Couple Violence
•Conflict interaction that gets out of hand and turns physical
•57% of engaged couples, but 16-19% of married couples
•Pushing, grabbing or shoving most common
•Men and women equally likely to engage in it
•But women are 6 times as likely as men to be injured
•May be unilateral or bilateral
•Situational Couple Violence
•Best predicted by situational factors, rather than personality
•People may engage in it in one relationship, but not others
•Alcohol is a contributing factor
•Partners may not report it as a problem
•Only 6% of wives seeking therapy list physical aggression as most important
problem, yet 57% report aggression in interviews and 67% on Conflict Tactics
Scale
•Conflict Tactics Scale
•Summary: Comparing 2 Types of IPV
Intimate Terrorism
○Grew out of interest in feminist issues
○Data from shelters, hospitals, police records
○Violence caused by patriarchal institutions that give men the right to
control “their” women
○Over 90% male
○Frequent violence
○Violence escalates
•Explanations for IPV
•Explanations for IPV
•Explanations for IPV
•Explanations for IPV
•I3 (“I-Cubed”) Theory and SCV
The starting point: People are violent when their impulses to aggress exceed
their restraint of this impulse.
•I3 Theory
•Instigating triggers: discrete partner behaviours that normatively trigger an urge to
aggress
•Impelling influences: dispositional or situational factors that psychologically prepare
the individual to experience a strong urge to aggress when encountering this
instigator in this context
•Inhibiting influences: dispositional or situational factors that increase likelihood that
people will override this urge to aggress
•I3 Examples
•Instigating triggers: provocation, insults, conflict, betrayal, rejection
•Impelling influences: violent family of origin, neuroticism, mismatched attachment
styles, work stress
•Inhibiting influences: exposure to egalitarian norms, high conscientiousness, executive
control, high satisfaction/commitment, sobriety
•I3Theory (“I-Cubed”)
•Voodoo Doll Study
•35-day daily diary study
•I3variables
○Instigator: Provocation (daily)
○Impellor: Dispositional physical aggressiveness
○Inhibitor: Executive control (Stroop)
•Voodoo doll task
•Results
•Longitudinal Marriage Study
•72 newlywed couples studied over 6-month period
•I3variables
○Instigator (proneness): partner’s neuroticism
□Ex: “I get irritated easily”
○Impellor: Trait anger
○(Dis)inhibitor: Life stress
•Actual IPV perpetration over the past 6 mos (from CTS)
○Ex: “Pushed, grabbed, or shoved spouse”
•Results
•Likelihood of Aggression
•In Sum
•Two main types of violence: intimate terrorism and situational couple violence (SCV)
•Studied from two different perspectives: feminist and family violence
•I-cubed theory is useful for understanding SCV
•Resources
On Campus
Health and Counselling Centre
https://www.utm.utoronto.ca/health/
905-828-5255
•Offers personal counselling, group counselling, and psychiatric care to assist students
experiencing a wide range of challenges
In Ontario
Assaulted Women’s Hotline
Hotline: 1-866-0511
Week 9
Thursday, November 8, 2018 11:10 AM
•Psychology 327
•Questions
How do partners in the happiest relationships communicate with one another?
Why does so much communication break down?
How can couples best resolve conflict?
Why do verbal fights sometimes turn into aggression?
•Plan for Today
Part 1: Conflict
Part 2: Interpersonal Violence
•Conflict
•What is Conflict?
•When one person’s motives, goals, beliefs, opinions, or behaviour are incompatible
with their partner
•Conflict is Inevitable
Conflict is inevitable in close relationships because:
•Any two people will occasionally differ in their moods and preferences.
•There are certain tensions that will always cause some strain.
•There are opposing motivations that can never be completely satisfied because they
contradict each other.
•Conflict is Inevitable
There are opposing motivations between:
•Personal autonomy and close connection to others
•Do you pursue intimacy or freedom?
•Openness versus closedness
•Do you pursue honesty, candor, and authenticity, or privacy, discretion, and
restraint??
•Conflict is Inevitable
There are opposing motivations between:
•Stability versus change
•Do you pursue novelty and excitement or familiarity and comfort?
•Integration with friends & family versus separation from friends and family
•Do you pursue close connections with family and friends or devote more time
and energy to your relationship?
•How Frequent is Relationship Conflict?
•
Every 3.6 minutes between 4-year olds and their mothers!
•
Adolescents report seven disagreements each day
•
Dating couples report 2.3 conflicts per week.
•
Spouses report 7 memorable “differences of opinion” every 2 weeks, and one or two
“unpleasant disagreements” each month.
•
Who Has the Most Conflict?
Personality – High neuroticism & low agreeableness have most conflict
Attachment – Securely attached people have fewer conflicts and manage conflicts
better when they do occur.= more conflict
Similarity – The less similar partners are to each other the more conflict they
experience.
Sleep – People are grumpy and irritable when they’ve slept poorly, and more conflict
occurs.
Stage of life – Older couples have fewer conflicts than younger couples do.
Alcohol – more to be said about this . . .
•Participants completed an online diary for 14 days
•Those high in attachment anxiety
○Reported more conflict
○Reported more conflict escalation
○Found conflict more hurtful
•Who Has the Most Conflict?
Personality – High neuroticism & low agreeableness have most conflict
Attachment – Securely attached people have fewer conflicts and manage conflicts
better when they do occur.= more conflict
Similarity – The less similar partners are to each other the more conflict they
experience.
Sleep – People are grumpy and irritable when they’ve slept poorly, and more conflict
occurs.
Stage of life – Older couples have fewer conflicts than younger couples do.
Alcohol – more to be said about this . . .
•Conflict and Alcohol
•Intoxication exacerbates conflict
•Adding alcohol to a frustrating disagreement is a bit like adding fuel to a fire.
Consider these data …
The rate of violence in marriage is six times higher when a spouse drinks heavily than
when he/she drinks moderately or not at all.
Marital violence is between four to six times more likely if the husband is an alcoholic
than if he is not.
And these…
Both boys and girls who bully others are almost five times more likely to report
alcohol use than those who do not bully.
Dating aggression is up to five times more likely among adolescents who use alcohol
compared with those who do not.
Experimental Study
•Male undergraduates in heterosexual relationships were asked to describe a current
conflict in their relationships
•“Drunk” group: drank vodka to Ontario’s legal limit (.08)
• Control group: consumed drink that smelled like alcohol but contained basically no
alcohol
•Asked to evaluate conflict they just described
Drunk Drama Queens
•Conflict
Instigation
Conflict communication
Conflict resolution
•Instigating Conflict
•Criticism - Being unjustly demeaning or derogatory toward our partners
•Illegitimate demands - Making requests that seem excessive and unjust
•Rebuffing - Rejecting a partner’s appeals for help or support
•Cumulative annoyances - Relatively trivial events that become irritating with
repetition
Think about the last time you had a conflict with someone. How did the conflict start?
A. Negatively (e.g., sarcastic remark)
B. Positively (e.g., calm discussion)
•Beginning a conversation in a negative way or with an accusation
•96% of the time, a harsh start up results in poor outcomes
Instigation
Conflict communication
Conflict resolution
Responses to conflict may vary by
□Constructive vs. destructive
□Active vs. passive
•Called “partner-regulation”
○Attempts to change partners’ undesirable behavior
○Enacted to enhance relationship (not be mean!)
•How do partners regulate each other?
•What distinguishes effective vs. ineffective partner-regulation attempts?
Partner-regulation strategies also vary by (Surprise!):
□Valence
®Positive vs. negative
□Directness
®Direct vs. indirect
Rational reasoning
○Presenting accurate information
□Pros and cons
□Consequences
□Suggest solutions
○Explain point of view
•Middle Stages of Conflict
Soft positive
○“Soften” persuasion attempts (e.g., minimize problem, point out good
characteristics of partner)
○Validate partner’s views
○Express positive affect (e.g., humor)
Coercion
○Derogate partner, e.g., criticize, insult, make fun of in hurtful way
○Indicate negative consequences, e.g., threaten punishment
○Express negative affect, e.g., yelling, cursing
Autocracy
○Make demands of a partner
○Exert superiority, invalidate partner, e.g., patronizing, condescending,
interrupting, rejecting partner’s arguments
•Middle Stages of Conflict
Manipulation
○Trying to make the partner feel guilty
○Appealing to partner’s love and concern
Supplication
○Using emotional expressions of hurt
○Debasing the self
○Emphasizing negative consequences of partner’s behavior for s