COMM4500 Exam 3

repair and deescalate

(3 and 4 together) this prevents negativity from escalating out of control. humor is a good tool here

Indirect fighting

(Indirect) dismissive/passive-aggressive, not intentionally trying to hurt, but it still hurts anyway. avoids the conflict specific tactics: ignoring partner/silent treatment, pretending they're not there, cold, contemptuous looks, rolling eyes, sarcasm *this can create a meta-conflict * especially problematic when used to avoid confronting problems

emotional infidelity

-emotionally attached to or "in love with" a potential rival -disclosing info with someone else and not telling your partner. -hard to prove/define when you're in it.

Strategies for ending relationships

-unilateral indirect -unilateral direct -bilateral indirect -bilateral direct

takeways from class

-use relationships as times to grow to be better people -and better partners. -we are built to belong. -be intentional and have fun.

dyadic model

2nd phase of ducks model revolves aronuddyadic comm -conflict isnt necessarily healthy here, shock and surprise, reconciliation (we can choose to forgive, cope etc), re-negotiate rules and boundaries

stonewalling

A physiological reaction. shutting down, not ignoring. -demand w/drawal is where this is common. - emotional disengagement, predicts divorce. -when people say "we no longer fight," it is a sign that they dont care. "fight" here means run into conflict. *antidote: self soothing. *women complain, men stonewall, both feel contempt and defensiveness

Emotional Bank Account

The good and harmful things we do each day that represent deposits and withdraws in our relationships with others - "putting $$ in the bank"- builds emotional savings account that bring a sense of peace/security in hard times/times of need how to put $ in the account: maintenance behaviors--> the little things add up, bids for connection

conflict

a disagreement, not necessarily yelling/arguing, not a "fight" happens when: -people are interdependent -there are scarce resources (time, money, connection) -incompatible goals (ex: Sarah and Russel in the case study: -sex/attention/communication) -there is perceived influence

the number one thing couples fight about the most according to Anderson Cooper show

absolutely nothing: ex: what to eat, toilet seat being left up, etc.

power

an individuals ability to influence oters and to resist influence -based on the control of resources ( $$, sex, time, etc.) -varies with desire/need for the resource -reduced if the resources are available elsewhere.

unilateral-Direct

can look like -The Direct Dump: usually face to face, could be over phone/text. hard to counter as a dumpee bc you already lost face by being dumped -relationship talk trick: "we need to talk" there is a conversation that has the intention to break up. -Positive Tone: (recommended, but can backfire) "it's not you it's me". plays into the dumpee's positive face, shows them they're valued, and break up with them anyway. *needs to be positive, but firm that you do not want to get back together. -genuine De-escalation: like pseudo de-escalation, but the intention is to NOT get back together

bilateral-indirect

can look like: -mutual fade out: essentially opposite of catastrophe theory. both parties grow apart over time. no convo about it, just a realization about it. happens often with LDR's and social media.

sexual infidelity

having physical intimacy with someone other than a committed romantic partner. -if you cheated, the best way to have your partner know is to tell them yourself. this yields the best outcome.

the importance of affect (relational cultural climate)

how do we create a + affect/culture? -with our emotional bank account--> it is important to build. the little things add up.

conflict isn't inherently good or bad--> it just is

it is how we deal with conflict that is important

gridlock problems

mishandled perpetual problems ex: what $$ means to us, our core ideas and fundamental beings. ex: different life dreams, entrenchment in positions, fears of accepting influence, vilification (four hoursemen), emotional disengagement -happens when you are fixed in your position and you disengage from the situation

Deception in Relationships

most people (92%) admit to having lied/were not completely honest. -motives: partner-, self-, and relationship- focused. it is not to intentionally hurt the person. However, the intention does not necessarily protect from the impact. -ex: "I don't want to hurt my partner, so I'm not gonna say everything.", surprise parties, Santa. -trust and commitment are the walls of the sound house of relationships

often times "lets just be friends" really means:

never gonna talk to you again

demand withdraw

one person wants to engage in conflict or makes demands (demander) on a partner and the other wants to avoid it (withdrawer) -problems of punctuation- not really a start/end bc not necessarily about just "taking the trash out" ex: "I have to always nag you because you're always withdrawing" --> "I withdraw bc you're always nagging me." -->meta conflict * stereotypically, women are the nagger and men are w/drawers -prevalent when violence is present: the person doesn't want to engage in violence so they w/draw

exaggeration

overstated; details added. ex: the person that was not a student added lots of details about classes, etc. trying to over-compensate for lack of truth.

concealment

relevant info is omitted

contempt

the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, being fed up, insulting, mockery ex: the guy in the love lab video laying on the couch straight up mocking his wife. *antidote: accepting responsibility

"Choosing a partner is choosing a set of problems"

the goal is to understand your partner, not to fix them

hurting the ones we love paradox

the people whom we share the strongest emotional connection with have the power to hurt us in ways that other people cannot.

investments

the things we put into the relationship. could be: -intrinsic: directly into the relationship. what you put into it. -extrinsic: what you develop over time in the relationship ex: children, money, family, friends, etc. -the more stuff you have (in/ex) the more committed you will be

understatement

understated, details own played. ex: "how was last night out?" "oh it was not really fun, kind of boring. (when in reality it was really fun)"

softened startup

ex: "i am ______ about______" complaining without blaming. -the antidote to complaints & defensiveness. ex: affection harsh: " you never touch me." /// softened: "I loved it when you kissed me in the kitchen yesterday. I would love it if we could do that more." ex: housework Harsh: "You never help around here and I am tired of doing all the cooking." /// Softened: " I just get overwhelmed when there is so much stuff in the sink. Can you dry, I will wash."

redefinition

ex: spouses become co-parents, daters become friends. -*with daters (romantic partners) turning into friends, this is: unlikely. -of those that do get back together, 60% of relationships declined over time (bc it is hard to maintain the closeness that you had before) and 20% became better friends. -more likely to get back together if you both engage in reflective talk, if you can actually just be friends (no physical), engage in social support (support their new endeavors/partners), and communicate forgiveness.

alternative quality

expectations about an alternative situation. -poor alternatives --> more commitment -good alternatives (better potential partners, more money, etc.) less commitment.

accommodation principle

explains why some break away from negativity. -based on 3 ideas: 1) people retaliate to other's destructive behavior 2) accommodation: overcome this tendency and engage in cooperative comm. couples that develops skill to accommodate leads to better satisfaction 3) satisfying, committed couples are more likely to accommodate

accepting influence

finding a way amidst conflict to see/consider that your partners pov as valid. ex: flowers situation --Partner doesnt know why girl is upset about not getting flowers. they are not open to being influenced. -if it's a problem for you both, it's a problem for your relationship. - happiest, most stable heterosexual marriages: the husband doesn't resist power sharing and decision making. it is essential in same-sex marriages as well.

hardest easiest to cope with

hardest to cope with: ghosting easiest to cope with: positive tone

the paradox of acceptance

if you want your partner to change, you have to accept them. it is through acceptance that you will find change.

equivocation

indirectness or ambiguity. not really giving the answer. by being ambiguous, you are not honest

deception

intentionally managing messages for the recipient so they understand in a way that is actually false. types: lies, equivocation, concealment, exaggeration, understatement.

power as a perception

no one onherently has power, it is something we inherently give, but we can also take it away. it is just a perception. we are socialized to do it. ex: teacher/student dynamic

defensiveness

not taking responsibility, counter complaints, mind-reading, "always/never" statements --> assuming someone's always at fault. -can be controlled- it is about taking responsibility. *Antidote: culture of appreciation and a softened startup

principle of reciprocity

people use indirect/ competitive strategies more than cooperative -aggression -->being aggressive --> partner reciprocating back the negativeness. -problems related to neg. reciprocity: overestimations of negativity, gunnysacking (bag up stuff and save it for later --> this creates more problems, kitchen sinking (the stuff your partner knows about but throwing in everything at once: ex: Russell and Sarah decided in the end of case study to focus on one problem at a time), mind reading ex: "you never/always _______" statements, defensiveness.

obsessive relational intrusion (ORI)

range from annoying, and malicious, to stalking, to violent behaviors. ex: calling and hanging up, asking repeatedly for another chance, watching from a distance, making exaggerated claims, invading one's home, damaging property, accessing their social media, egging their car, stalking *all stalking isn't ORI--> it is unwanted, but not all stalking is ori. hard to know what to do when you're the rejector. it is when things get violent that we then have models of what to do.

all relationships end

regardless if they're brief, or deep, short or long, friendships, romantic relationships, family. -sometimes the end is voluntary sometimes involuntary (i.e. a death, moving away, etc.) common reasons to end: infidelity, substance abuse, grew apart, partner personality, lack of comm, abuse, loss of love, not meeting responsibilities, work problems, financial issues.

the investment model

satisfaction, investments, and alternatives play into commitment. Commitment plays into the decision to remain, the tendency to accommodate, willingness to sacrifice, perceived superiority. these lead into the stability of a relationship.

catastrophe theory

some relationships don't go through phase. instead, experience sudden death. -25% report break up bc of a single critical event (infidelity, serious argument blowing up, physical violence, partner just out of the blue breaks up

prosocial behaviors

stems from commitment. committed more likely to engage in prosocial behaviors: -decision to remain: committed to stay -accommodating partner: room for error, but committed - derogating alternatives: ignore alternatives. ex: "i have a bf/gf." - being willing to make sacrifices -perceiving relationship superiority: your relationship is super important to you **all of these behaviors lead to stability

four horsemen of the appocalypse

the biggest predictors of the end of a relationship. developed by Gottman. -can predict divorce with 90% accuracy. love lab video in class: connect people to machines and measure physiological aspects then put them and their partner in an apartment to monitor. layered all the pieces of study together (words, behaviors, physiological parts) 4 horsemen: complaints/criticism, contempt, defensiveness, stonewalling. * contempt and stonewalling usually not good when frequently used and not trying remedy to them

commitment

the cognitive choice to maintain a relationship. -the cool element. helps relationships and helps buffer against the destruction of conflict and hurtful events -commitment does not mean you're happy, however. -predictors of commitment: satisfaction, investments, alternative quality. **commitment is bigger than a choice

unilateral-indirect

the most common way, but not a good way. can look like: -ghosting/avoidance. -1-way-fade: sounds like ghost, but it happens over time (not as sudden as ghost--ex: taking longer to respond to texts) -3rd party manipulation: making partner jealous so they break up with you, using people to do it for you. -pseudo-de-escalation: we say we "need a break" with no intention of getting back together -cost escalation: if we make the rltn more costly than rewarding for our partner, they will want to breakup with us. it puts it on them

emotional flooding

the physiological reaction to a perceived threat, fight or flight. ex: neighbor kid play fighting with Jalen, he got overwhelmed and said "I hate Jalen I'm never coming here again" it is the inability to problem solve or empathize. -men flood quicker and for longer, stonewall to calm down -women are better able to calm down. her partner's stonewalling can increase her heartrate sometimes antidote: physiological self soothing

intimate partner violence

threatened, attempted, or completed violence by a current/former partner. could be physical, sexual, or emotional. it exists along a continuum: -a single episode to ongoing incidents -low violence (ex: pushing) to high violence (ex: using a gun)

Power as a relational construct

we only have power bc of the role we play. ex: outside of class, teacher is a person -relational power:power in comparison to partner's. it is a relative thing - most happy relationships: power is = -least happy when woman has more power than man --> it is countering what we are socialized to be like. this builds resentment

positive vs negative perspective

what it feels like in the relationship, based on intimacy, turning towards, affection, etc. negative perception: negative sentiments override. we don't feel safe, a discrepancy between perceptions of an interaction. ex: your partner eats your leftovers and you 1st think "they don't care about me"-it is turning something simple and flipping it. - negative attributions about your Significant other(s.o.)/relationship (rltn) snowball.

Conflict Styles

(Indirect): Indirect fighting, avoiding, yielding (Direct): Competitive fighting, compromise, collaborating.

collaborating

(direct) creative problem solving, not managing, win-win. -specific tactics: asks about partners' feelings, support, and empathy (active listening), accepting responsibility, emphasizing commonalities. (wanting the same thing, just different in how to obtain it) -most effective and appropriate tactic. ex: went with name "Jalen A." --> "A" for all the A names .

Competitive Fighting

(direct) defeat partner/win argument, win-lose. -specific tactics: attacks, personal criticisms toward partner, blaming, accusations of partner, hostile questioning, teasing, demands/threats -associated w/ poor comm skills

compromise

(direct) part win/part lose for both sides. easier than collaboration. -specific tactics: taking a middle ground, alternating (ex: if I choose now, you choose next time), appeals to fairness. -this tactic is moderately appropriate and effective. -ex: "Jalen Angel" --> both in that the 1st name wasn't Angel and husband got to name. she didn't want to leave out her brother's name Alex --> naming was not settled yet

Avoiding

(indirect) a lose-lose situation with issues unsolved. -someone tries to address it w/ the intention to converse, but the other party doesn't cooperate. -specific tactics: denying the conflict, being indirect, evasive, changing topic, acting as if you don't care, saying "I'm fine" when you really aren't **this style is almost worse than indirect fighting **avoiding --> creates disengagement ex: Dr. naming her baby: she avoided naming him for a while bc she didn't plan on having a baby yet -this style can be beneficial if the relationship is more important than the conflict

yielding

(indirect) very cooperative, indirect, lose-win. someone will get what they want while the other party loses. -problematic if the same party is always giving in --> power imbalance. -the chilling effect: is feeling powerless and that partner will be aggressive. -yielding is beneficial if the issue is more important to one partner. -specific tactics: appeasement (giving in), passive acceptance. ex: when Dr. said "no" to Angel suggestion for name then said "whatever" for Jalen name suggestion --> the name meant more to husband at the time bc she was not ready for baby

sex differences in reactions to infidelity in relation to the social evolutionary hypothesis

(women seek resources men seek procreation) -women: upset at the emotional aspect. women value resources and their partner isnt being emotionally satisfied so partner looks elsewhere for emotional resource. -men: upset at sexual aspect; paternal uncertainty the baby is someone elses

what are ways you can detect if someone is lying to you?

*detection accuracy is generally low. (50-60%) -advantages of relational closeness: behavioral familiarity and informational familiarity (we know how our partners act and their lives) -disadvantages of relational closeness: truth bias- we think they're always telling the truth, behavioral control

Duck's Process Model of Dissolution

- a stage model of dissolution, leading model of realtional breakups, emphasizes comm before, during, and after breakup. steps can be skipped and gone back to also. 1) Intrapsychic (inside) 2) Dyadic process (together) 3) Social process (public) 4) Grave dressing 5) resurrecting **not all relationships follow this model

Types of conflict

-Solvable: 31% of problems. these are situational issues. ex: where to eat. probably obvious and not rooted in anything more -Perpetual:69% of problems. Fundamental differences in personality/ lifestyle needs. Cant really change it, can just talk about it and work from there. ex: how to discipline children, punctuality, being people oriented, ambition level, neatness, sexual frequency -while these cant be solved, they are the greatest opportunity for intimacy; share/disclose with your partner these personality traits.

infidelity

-can be sexual infidelity or emotional infidelity. -both interrupt the kind of love we have with our partner -it is one of the most hurtful things in a relationship, whatever the outcome may be. -infidelity can be fixed, it requires a lot of work.

reintegration

-challenging to do -reintegrating the person back into your social networks. can be challenging bc social network may disapprove of them now, you also might lose face in taking them back bc your standards have changed.

common conflict issues for couples with children

-chores/responsibilities: 49% -$$/children -sex -leisure time -the In-laws -affection -religion -drinking alcohol

why do people pursue other people in the ORI way?

-cultural scripts: songs about pulling out all the stops, social media grand gestures of love -ambiguity of communications: unclear rejection -rumination: thinking over and over about it leads to rationalization, idealization, "if i try really hard, it will work"

power as having less to lose

-dependence power- you're powerless if you're dependent on your relationship and have low/few alternatives. the more dependent on the relationship you are, the less power you have -principle of least interest: the person more in love is at the disadvantage. the one loving the most has the least amount of power, you have the most to lose/dissolve.

other relationship tips

-don't let stuff build up -avoid mind reading -use behavioral complaints, not criticism -avoid "never/always" statements -use empathy -sometimes we think we have a softened startup, but it really isn't.

reconciliation

-getting back together after a breakup -on/off again relationships (2/3 college relationships are like this), this style is not necessarily bad, but after repeated pattern, shows lack of stability.

ratios of couples --> + affect

-masters: married: 5:1 ratio of +:- in the midst of conflict - disasters: divorced: 0.8:1 ratio of +:- in th midst of conflict. the absence of + is more harmful than the presence of a - -how to ensure + affect in conflict? turn toward your partner. 20:1 outside of conflict

power as resource based

-men want $$, women want private interactions --> private interactions: women tend to dominate --> public interactions: men tend to dominate -this perpetuates the dynamic of men over women -the scarcity hypothesis: more power when resources are hard to come by or in high demand

negative outcomes of relationship breakups

-negative emotions: a mixture of sadness, anger, guilt, etc. all at once. breakups can be the most traumatic, distressing event we can experience. -loneliness: the discrepancy in what we want vs. what we receive. we want something we don't have. -financial consequences: shared assets sometimes get lost. ex: home, property, child custody -effects on children: the effect is statistically significant but relatively small. - children with divorced parents face depression, less life satisfaction, and lower SES. ///Can be mitigated though with good co-parenting. /// (intergenerational transmission: the chain of divorced parents having divorced parents also- parents models were their parents- a definition of love that is just what they know.) -health consequences: heart problems, cancer, lowered immune system, violence, suicide, psychiatric illness.

positive outcomes of breakup

-personal: self-sufficiency/confidence increases. -relational: you now have more time to pour into other relationships how to comm with partners, how to develop and maintain your relationships. you learn to develop comm skills better. -environmental: able to concentrate on school, work, friends/fam. -future: know what you want/don't want in the future relationships and personal goals.

power and violence

-power is inherent (even with strangers): old/young, men/women, race, etc. -power can be used for good or bad--> most people use power generously and for good. Others tend to be controlling/dominating when they don't get what they want, they turn to violence.

men, women, power

-power is inherent in any relationship, but when there are no gender expectations, there's better negotiation. -why is it so hard for egalitarian relations to occur? : a disparity in resources--men getting paid more : social norms- they continue to maintain expectations in our society. the norm of patriarchy worldwide: only 3(matriarchy)-8(patriarchy) : despite interests in equality, most tolerate inequality. they may not realize how one-sided partnerships are, equality is elusive.

behavior leading to hurt feelings

-relational transgressions: violation of the relational rules. -hurtful messages: the actual things we say, words that elicit psychological pain.

power as enabling or disabling

-successful in achieving goals -emotional insensitivity/dehumanization: people cant see the harm they are doing to individuals. ex: when people attack using military force on families, they have a choice and they do it bc they can. ex: doctors- they have lots of power at the nature of their profession. they treat people as bodies bc they cannot get emotionally attached. -chilling effect: an individual is so scared to speak out, so they dont. the other person is so powerful they silence themselves. -demand withdraw sequences: the demander tries to exert power, withdrawer takes power by non engaging in conversation.

complaints/criticism

1 of four horsemen this is behavior, personal characteristics, appearance, and meta complaints. -criticism: (not great to use) ex: "you never think about how your behavior is affecting other people. i don't think you're that forgetful, you're just selfish." -complaint: (better to use than complaint): ex: "I was scared when you were running late and did not tell me. i thought we agreed we would let e/o know" *antidote: softened startup -this horsemen usually shows up first.

Power Principles

1) Power as perception 2) Power as a relational concept 3) Power as resource based 4) Power as having less to lose 5) Power as enabling or disabling 6) Power as a prerogative

patterns of conflict interaction

1) principle of reciprocity 2) demand withdraw 3) four horsemen 4) accommodation principle

ways to manage conflict

1) psychological self-soothing 2) softened startup 3) repair during conflict 4) deescalate 5) accept influence

comm pattens that prevent divorce

1) softened startup 2) state what you want, not what you don't want 3) accept partner's emotional bids 4) express appreciation 5) repair conversations 6) establish rituals for connection (bids for connection) 7)Accept influence (accept who they are for a change in dynamic/behavior)

comm patterns related to divorce

1) withdrawal- lack of intimacy/connection/stonewalling 2) negative comm- not the conflict, but the partners dealing with the conflict. remember the 5:1 ratio in the midst of conflict 3) lack of openness and intimacy 4) abusive comm (physical, psychological, doesnt always lead to break up)

Frequency of Conflict

1-3 mild disagreements per week 1-2 serious per month 12:24 serious arguments in a year with a partner * distressed couples have 5.4 conflicts in a 5 day period *too much conflict = relational problems *conflict is positively associated with relational closeness and interdependence *some conflict is healthy **managing conflict is more important than frequency

intrapsychic stage

1st phase of ducks process model -triggered by dissatisfaction or discomfort -determine needs and feelings, weigh costs and rewards, initial withdrawal and contemplation (we become dissatisfied when costs/rewards in imbalance, prepare to talk to partner

after break up options

3 options: 1) Reconciliation 2) Reintegration 3) Redefinition

social process

3rd phase of ducks model couples go "public" about their relational issues -seeking social support from someone outside their partner, complain about partner, face saving efforts, preps social network for breakup

grave dressing

4th phase of ducks model cope with a breakup in a socially acceptable way -develop and refine "breakup story" for different audiences -more face saving comm (differs with dumper and dumpee)

resurrection process

5th stage of ducks model finding closure and moving on -visualize future without partner (ex: Peter's closure in the MRI about his ex gf), take lessons away from the experience, revise breakup story (paragraphs become one sentence or no longer even part of the story), explore new alternatives

unrequited love

a would-be-lover and a rejector of that love. Can be before a relationship even begins, at the end of a relationship when one person holds on harder than the other, or after the relationship has ended and one person fawns over the other still. -it is uncomfortable for all, but the one that experiences the most hurt is the rejector because of guilt. *this unrequited love can turn into obsessive relational intrusion.

physiological self soothing

allowing your body to calm down --> our bodies just wont stop crying when we tell it. -it is stopping, stepping away for at least 20 minutes, not ruminating, relaxing, and coming back. -it is the antidote to stonewalling.

satisfaction

based on: -rewards: + consequences of a relationship -costs: - consequences of a relationship -outcome: reward/cost ratio---> should be more rewarding than costly -comparison level: expectations from own or another's relationships. developed from past relationships: love is when they hit me/love is when they text me. based on partners' knowledge of the examples they see- parents, friends. -people are most satisfied when rewards outweigh the costs. the more satisfied we are, the more likely we are to stay committed

double-shot hypothesis

both things are hurtful. If you have two things that hurt your partner, which one hurts the most. -men choose sexual bc it implies emotional fidelity bc women stereotypically don't have sex for fun. -women choose emotional bc it implies sexual infidelity. stereotypically, men have sex with whoever.

bilateral-direct

can look like: -blame game: see it/think about it when we think of toxic rltns. the rltns maintain themselves in conflict. hard to break the "norm". no one really wants to do the breaking up so gets stuck. hurtful things are said. -negotiated farewell: important in LT relationships especially if there are shared things: children, property, etc. (this type is recommended)

power as a prerogative:

can make rules/break rules. ex: mom ad child: "why do you get to do what you want and I cant?- kid. "bc I'm the mom and you're the kid"- mom.

lies

clearly different from the truth. ex: that guy that said he was a uga student to his gf but was not a uga student