PSY327H5 Lecture 9: Week 9

33 views18 pages
8 Nov 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
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 persons 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 theyve 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 theyve 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 Ontarios 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 partners 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 partners 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 partners arguments
Middle Stages of Conflict
Manipulation
Trying to make the partner feel guilty
Appealing to partners love and concern
Supplication
Using emotional expressions of hurt
Debasing the self
Emphasizing negative consequences of partners 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
Marys best bet to change Johns behavior immediately?
A. positive direct: calmly explain that shed 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 hell 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
Gottmanns 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 partners 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 didnt take out the trash.
versus
I cant believe you didnt 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 couldnt 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 persons 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 isnt 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
doesnt 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): partners 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 Womens Hotline
Hotline: 1-866-0511
Week 9
Thursday, November 8, 2018
11:10 AM
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 18 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
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 persons 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 theyve 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 theyve 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 Ontarios 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 partners 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 partners 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 partners arguments
Middle Stages of Conflict
Manipulation
Trying to make the partner feel guilty
Appealing to partners love and concern
Supplication
Using emotional expressions of hurt
Debasing the self
Emphasizing negative consequences of partners 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
Marys best bet to change Johns behavior immediately?
A. positive direct: calmly explain that shed 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 hell 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
Gottmanns 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 partners 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 didnt take out the trash.
versus
I cant believe you didnt 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 couldnt 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 persons 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 isnt 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
doesnt 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): partners 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 Womens Hotline
Hotline: 1-866-0511
Week 9
Thursday, November 8, 2018 11:10 AM
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 18 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
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 persons 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 theyve 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 theyve 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 Ontarios 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 partners 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 partners 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 partners arguments
Middle Stages of Conflict
Manipulation
Trying to make the partner feel guilty
Appealing to partners love and concern
Supplication
Using emotional expressions of hurt
Debasing the self
Emphasizing negative consequences of partners behavior for s