Intimate

Relationships

Rowland S.Miller

习读专用，不作商用，如侵联删。

C H A P T E R 11

Conflict

The Nature of Conflict ◆ The Course of Conflict

◆ The Outcomes of Conflict ◆ For Your Consideration

◆ Chapter Summary

Do your friends and lovers always do everything you want, when you want it? Of course not. There’s no such thing as an intimate relationship that does not involve occasional friction and incompatibility in the desires, opinions, and actions of the two partners. No matter how much two people care for each other, no matter how well-suited they are to each other, dispute and disagree- ment will occur (Canary & Lakey, 2013). And the more interdependent they are—the more time they spend together and the wider the variety of activities and tasks they try to coordinate––the more likely occasional conflict becomes (Miller, 1997b). Conflict is inevitable in close relationships.

It’s also very influential. Over time, the manner in which two partners manage their conflicts may either enhance or erode their love and regard for each other. In this chapter, then, we’ll examine the nature and sources of this sometimes frustrating, sometimes fulfilling, but ultimately unavoidable aspect of intimate relationships. We’ll look at how conflicts unfold, how they esca- late, and how people can respond to them more effectively. We’ll also consider whether conflict can be beneficial to relationships. (What do you think the answer will be? Can conflict be advantageous?)

11.1 THE NATURE OF CONFLICT

What Is Conflict?

Interpersonal conflict occurs whenever one person’s motives, goals, beliefs, opin- ions, or behavior interfere with, or are incompatible with, those of another. Con- flict is born of dissimilarity, which may be passing in the form of moods, or lasting in the form of beliefs and personality. Two people always differ in important ways, but I’ll employ a definition of conflict that involves active interference with another’s goals: Conflict occurs when one’s wishes or actions actually obstruct or impede those of someone else. When two partners are both able to do as they wish, no conflict exists. On the other hand, if one or both of them have to give up something that they want because of the other’s influence, conflict occurs. Anger and hostility aren’t necessary; we make some sacrifices to accommodate our part- ners generously and happily. And not all conflicts are overt; we are sometimes unaware of the difficulties we are causing our partners (Fincham & Beach, 1999). It’s enough that someone knowingly or unknowingly prevents another from get- ting or doing everything he or she wants.

Conflict is inescapable for two reasons. First, the moods and preferences of any two people will occasionally differ. Intermittent incompatibilities between two partners’ goals and behaviors will inevitably arise. For instance, even if both members of a couple are extraverted, hard-partying social animals, one of them will occasionally be disappointed by the other’s wish to leave a party before it’s over; a case of the flu or an upcoming exam in a close relationships class will make one of them, but not the other, unwilling to stay late.

Second, conflict is unavoidable because there are certain tensions that are woven into the fabric of close relationships that will, sooner or later, always cause some strain. When they devote themselves to an intimate relationship, people often experience opposing motivations called dialectics that can never be entirely satisfied because they contradict each other (Baxter, 2004). Fulfilling one goal may endanger another, so partners must engage in a delicate balanc- ing act that leaves them drawn in different directions at different times. And with each partner vacillating between the pursuit of these opposing goals, occasional conflict between their predominant individual motives is inescap- able (Erbert, 2000).

For instance, one potent dialectic in close relationships is the continual ten- sion between personal autonomy and connection to others. On one hand, people often want to be free to do what they want, so they value their independence and autonomy. On the other hand, they also seek warm, close connections to others that can make them dependent on particular partners. So, which do they pursue? Intimacy or freedom? Independence or belonging? It’s rea- sonable to assume that most people want some of both, but embracing one of them can mean deny- ing the other. So people’s preferences may swing back and forth as they come to be more influenced by whichever motive has lately been less fulfilled. Maintaining an equilibrium between the two desires is a tricky balancing act (Slotter et al., 2014), and we can’t simultaneously maintain high independence from a romantic partner and high interdependence with him or her, so something’s got to give. Conflict between the partners is likely to occur as they strive to fulfill opposing motives at different rates and at different times.

Another powerful dialectic is the tension between openness and closedness. Intimacy involves self-disclosure, and intimate partners are expected to share their thoughts and feelings with one another. However, people also like their privacy, and there are some things that prudent partners want to keep to themselves (Petronio, 2010). On the one hand, there’s candor and transparent authenticity, and on the other hand, there’s discretion and restraint.

There’s also friction between stability and change. People with pleas- ant partnerships will want to maintain and protect them, keeping things the way they are. But people also relish novelty and excitement (Sheldon et al., 2013). Too much stagnant predictability becomes mundane and monotonous (Harasymchuk & Fehr, 2013). So, people are attracted to both the familiar and the new, and occasional indecision and conflict may result.

Finally, there’s dialectic tension between integration with and separation from one’s social network. Would you rather go to that party with your friends or stay home and snuggle with your sweetheart tonight? Will you travel to your in-law’s home for Thanksgiving again this year or stay home and begin your own family tradition? One’s motive to stay involved with other people is sometimes at odds with the wish to devote oneself to a romantic partnership. People see less of their friends when they invest time and effort into a romantic relationship (Fehr, 1999), and finding a satisfying ratio of time spent with and time apart from other people can be difficult.

Altogether, these four dialectics––autonomy versus connection, openness versus closedness, stability versus change, and integration versus separation— accounted for more than one-third of the recent fights and arguments reported by married couples in one study (Erbert, 2000). And what’s important is that these tensions typically continue to some degree throughout the entire life of a relationship (Baxter, 2004). The dilemmas posed by fluctuating, opposing motives in close relationships never end. Sooner or later, conflict occurs.

The Frequency of Conflict

How often do partners engage in conflict? Frequently, but the answer var- ies with the population studied and the way in which conflict is defined and assessed. Little children and their parents are often at odds; one study deter- mined that some conflict occurred every 3.6 minutes in conversations between 4-year-olds and their mothers (Eisenberg, 1992)! Adolescents encounter an aver- age of seven disagreements per day in their various relationships (Laursen & Collins, 1994), and dating couples report 2.3 conflicts per week when they keep diaries of their interactions (Lloyd, 1987). Spouses report seven memorable “differences of opinion” every 2 weeks (Papp et al., 2009), and they experi- ence one or two “unpleasant disagreements” each month (McGonagle et al., 1992). And, importantly, many conflicts are never addressed; in one investi- gation, Northwestern University students didn’t mention to their partners 40 percent of the conflicts and irritations they identified in their dating relationships (Roloff & Cloven, 1990). Conflict not only is common in close rela- tionships, it also probably occurs more often than we realize.

However, as you might expect, some people experience more conflict than other people do. Various influences are correlated with the amount of conflict we encounter:

Personality. People who are high in neuroticism are impulsive and irascible, and they have more unhappy disagreements with others than people of low neuroticism do (Heaven et al., 2006). In contrast, people high in agreeableness are good natured, cooperative, and generally easy to get along with, and they

have fewer conflicts; if conflict does occur, they also react more constructively than people of low agreeableness do (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001).

Attachment style. Secure people encounter less conflict—and manage it bet- ter when it does occur—than insecure people do (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2013). In particular, because they fret that their partners may leave them, people who are anxious about abandonment nervously perceive dissension and difficulty where it does not exist, and then respond with greater hurt and distress than others would (Overall et al., 2014). A married couple comprised of an anxious wife and an avoidant husband is especially combustible: Her exaggerated fears chase him away, and his withdrawal then further fuels her worries (Barry & Lawrence, 2013). In the lab, both members of such couples evidence elevated levels of stress before a discussion of a disagreement even begins (L. Beck et al., 2013).

Stage of life. If you’re a young adult, you may be experiencing more conflict with your partners than you used to. It’s typical for people to develop lasting romances and to begin professional careers in their mid-20s, and, according to a longitudinal study of young adults in New York state, these life changes are routinely associated with increased conflict (Chen et al., 2006). As you can see in Figure 11.1, conflict with romantic partners increases steadily from our late teens to our mid-20s, but things settle down somewhat thereafter.

Relationships get even more placid in our elder years. Older couples usu- ally have fewer disagreements about children and money and other touchy top- ics than middle-aged couples do (Levenson et al., 1993), and they tend to shy away from talking about the things they do disagree about (Holley et al., 2013).

Similarity. Conflict emerges from incompatibility, so it’s not surprising that the less similar dating partners are, the more conflict they experience (Surra & Longstreth, 1990). This pattern continues if people marry; spouses who share similar tastes and expectations encounter less conflict and enjoy happier mar- riages than do those who have less in common (Huston & Houts, 1998). Indeed, those who really believe that “opposites attract” are likely to learn some hard lessons if they start living with someone who is notably different from them. Dissimilarity fuels friction, not smooth sailing.

Sleep. Partners tend to sleep poorly after they quarrel, and that leaves them grumpy and irritable the next day (El-Sheikh et al., 2013). As a result—and whenever either of them has slept poorly—romantic couples encounter more conflict that day (Gordon & Chen, 2014). Sleeplessness breeds conflict, so if you and your partner are getting testy and tetchy, try to get a good night’s sleep.

Alcohol. Finally, lest there be any doubt, alcohol does not make people more agreeable and courteous; instead, intoxication exacerbates conflict. An intrigu- ing study of alcohol’s effects invited men who were either sober or intoxicated to revisit a recent romantic conflict (MacDonald et al., 2000). Drunkenness made the men more sour and surly; in response to events of the same average intensity, intoxicated men were more hostile and blaming than sober men were. Adding alcohol to a frustrating disagreement is a bit like adding fuel to a fire.

11.2 THE COURSE OF CONFLICT

Instigating Events

So, what events cause conflict? A wide-ranging review of conflict studies by Donald Peterson (2002, p. 367) concluded that couples may disagree about almost any issue: “how to spend time together, how to manage money, how to deal with in-laws, frequency and mode of sexual intercourse, who did which chores, insufficient expressions of affect (not enough affection), exaggerated expressions of affect (moodiness, anger), personal habits, political views, reli- gious beliefs, jealousies toward other men and women, relatives, and the cou- ples’ own children.” You name it, and some couple somewhere is quarreling over it. After David Buss (1989) asked students at the University of Michigan to specify things that men do that upset women (and vice versa), he grouped their answers into 147 distinct sources of conflict. It’s obvious that the interdepen- dency that characterizes an intimate relationship provides “abundant opportu- nities for dispute” (Peterson, 2002, p. 367).

When spouses keep track of all of their disagreements over a span of 15 days, some topics recur more often than others (Papp et al., 2009). As you can see in Table 11.1, those who are parents disagree more about how to manage, discipline, and care for their children—and when—than about anything else. (Remember that people who haven’t read chapter 6 sometimes naïvely believe that having kids will make their marriages happier—but in fact, the reverse is true [Wendorf et al., 2011].) The division and performance of household chores and responsibilities are next on the list (remember, it’s hard, but important, to divide them fairly [Amato et al., 2007]), and commu- nication is third (involving problems with interpersonal gaps and perceived partner responsiveness). It’s down in sixth place, but the most enduring, con- tentious, and sometimes surly disagreements revolve around money: who’s earning and who’s spending what, and what’s being bought. Arguments about money are particularly potent in undermining marital satisfaction (Britt & Huston, 2012).

To make sense of this variety, Peterson (2002) classified the events that instigate conflicts into four common categories: criticism, illegitimate demands, rebuffs, and cumulative annoyances. Criticism involves verbal or nonverbal acts that are judged to communicate dissatisfaction with a partner’s behavior, attitude, or trait (Cupach, 2007). It doesn’t matter what the actor intends by his or her remark or behavior; what matters is that the target interprets the action as being unjustly critical. A mild suggestion about how to load the dishwasher to fit more stuff in may injure one’s partner and engender conflict if the sugges- tion is judged to be needless criticism.

Illegitimate demands involve requests that seem unjust because they exceed the normal expectations that the partners hold for each other. Even

when one partner is frantically completing a major project, for instance, the other may be upset by being asked to fix dinner and do the dishes three nights in a row.

Rebuffs involve situations in which “one person appeals to another for a desired reaction, and the other person fails to respond as expected” (Peterson, 2002, p. 371). Someone whose partner rolls over and goes to sleep after receiv- ing an implicit invitation to have sex is likely to feel rebuffed.

Finally, cumulative annoyances are relatively trivial events that become irritating with repetition. Such events often take the form of social allergies: Through repeated exposure to small recurring nuisances, people may develop hypersensitive reactions of disgust and exasperation that seem out of propor- tion to any particular provocation. Women are especially likely to become annoyed with men’s uncouth habits, such as belching at the dinner table, and men are likely to grow irritated with women’s lack of consideration, such as being late for appointments and shopping too long (Cunningham et al., 2005).

Evolutionary psychology makes its own intriguing predictions about conflict in close relationships (Buss, 2012). From an evolutionary perspective, some conflict in heterosexual relationships flows naturally from differences in the partners’ reproductive interests. Presumably, given their lower paren- tal investment in any babies that may result, men can afford to be more inter- ested in casual, uncommitted sex than women are; by comparison, women should be more prudent, offering access to sex only in return for meaningful commitment from a man. And in fact, the frustrations that men and women usually encounter early in a romantic relationship run right along these lines: “Women, far more than men, become angry and upset by those who want sex sooner, more frequently, and more persistently than they want. Men, far more than women, become angry and upset by those who delay sex or thwart their sexual advances” (Buss, 2000, p. 38). The question of whether to have sex is usually answered when people settle into established relation- ships, but the question of how often to have sex may persist for decades. Differences in sexual desire cause conflict for most couples, requiring nego- tiation, tradeoffs, and adjustment, and in most cases the difficulty never disappears completely (Elliott & Umberson, 2008). Individual differences in sexual tastes and drives can remain a source of distressing rebuffs as long as a relationship lasts.

I can also note that the sore points routinely encountered by gay and les- bian couples don’t differ much from those that vex heterosexuals. Gay men are more likely than anyone else to disagree about the rules regarding extradyadic sex, but otherwise, gays and lesbians are just as likely as their straight brothers and sisters1 to fuss about chores, communication, money, and all the rest of the topics in Table 11.1 (Solomon et al., 2005). When it comes to conflict, as with so many other aspects of intimacy, sexual orientation doesn’t have much to do with how (or if) close relationships work.

1 This can be taken literally. The married heterosexual participants in Solomon et al.’s (2005) study were siblings of the gay and lesbian participants. Clever procedure, wasn’t it?

Attributions

The differing perspectives that any two people bring to their interaction will often be another source of exasperating disagreement. Actor-observer effects guarantee that partners will have slightly different explanations for their actions than anyone else does, and self-serving biases lead them to judge their own actions more favorably than others do.2 In particular, although people readily recognize self-serving attributions in others’ judgments of events, they usually consider their own similarly biased perceptions to be impartial and fair (Pronin et al., 2002). Thus, two partners’ attributions routinely differ, and this can create conflict in two different ways.

2 We introduced these attributional patterns back in chapter 4.

First, frustrating misunderstandings can result if people fail to appreciate that their partners always have their own individual points of view. And second, if those differing views come to light, the partners may engage in attributional conflict, fighting over whose explanation is right and whose account is wrong. Partners may agree entirely about what one of them did but simultaneously disagree completely about why that person did it. (“You left that there just to annoy me!” “No, I didn’t. I went to answer my phone and forgot about it.”) Attributional arguments are often hard to resolve because when people disagree with us, we tend to think they’re biased, and that’s exas- perating (Kennedy & Pronin, 2008).

Moreover, there may not be any single explanation for an event that is objectively and conclusively correct. People who may have behaved selfishly, for instance, will often have difficulty realizing that they were greedy, and they’ll tend to be blind to the manner in which their own selfishness may elicit similar thoughtlessness in return. The interactions two partners share may be affected by so many subtle influences that reasonable people can, and often will, disagree about why things turn out the way they do.

Then, when any conflict occurs, the explanations with which intimate part- ners account for the frustrations they encounter have a huge influence on how distressed they feel and how angrily they respond. (See the box, “Mastering Our Anger,” that begins on the next page.) If a partner’s misbehavior is construed to be an unintentional accident, being attributed to external and unstable causes, the partner will seem relatively blameless, and strong emotion (and retribution) will be inappropriate.

In contrast, if a partner’s misdeeds are attributed to internal and stable sources, the misdeeds seem intentional and the partner seems mali- cious, selfish, indecent, or inept––and in such circumstances, one’s inconvenience seems unjust, and one’s anger fitting (Canary & Lakey, 2013). It’s no accident then, that happy couples are less likely than unhappy couples to regard their partners as selfishly motivated and as behaving unfairly with negative intent (Kluwer et al., 2009). Benevolent attributions paint a partner in a favorable light and make it seem likely that conflicts can be resolved, and that’s one reason such attributions promote continued satisfaction with a relationship (Fincham 2001).

Specific responses to conflict are also shaped by our attributions for an event. When we judge that our partners can change an unwanted behavior—so that our efforts to resolve a conflict may pay off—we’re more likely to announce our discontent and to constructively seek solutions than is the case when we believe that our partners cannot change (Kammrath & Dweck, 2006). People tend to just sit and stew when they think a problem is set in stone.

Engagement and Escalation

Indeed, once an instigating event occurs, partners must decide either to address the issue or to avoid it and let it drop. This decision is the first choice point in Peterson’s (2002) general model of conflict, which appears in Figure 11.2. (At first glance, you may find the figure a little daunting, but be patient; it cleverly illustrates several different manners in which conflict can unfold. Trace some of the paths and see.) Avoidance occurs only when both partners wish to evade the issue, and it presumably transpires either when the event is seen as insufficient to warrant active dispute or when the issue seems intractable and conflict will do no good (Zacchilli et al., 2009).

Otherwise, the issue is addressed. In some cases, the couple enters into negotiation and seeks to resolve the conflict through rational problem solving. However, in other cases, escalation occurs and the conflict heats up. Escalation often involves the dysfunctional forms of communication I described in chap- ter 5. Other issues may get dragged into the interaction, scornful disregard of the partner may be expressed, and belligerent demands and threats may be made. Angry fighting may ensue.

When partners say mean and nasty things to each other, they can be of two types (Canary & Lakey, 2013). Direct tactics explicitly challenge one’s partner; they’re “in one’s face.” They include (a) accusations that criticize the partner and attribute negative qualities to him or her; (b) hostile commands for compliance that sometimes involve threats of physical or emotional harm; (c) antagonistic questions; and (d) surly or sarcastic put-downs that communicate disgust or disapproval (including argumentative interruptions and shouting down one’s partner). Indirect nasty tactics manage the conflict in a less straightforward man- ner; one’s displeasure is veiled, and one’s intentions are less explicit. Indirect tactics include (a) condescension or implied negativity that hints at animosity or arrogance; ( b) dysphoric affect, such as melancholy, dejection, or whining;(c) attempts to change topics preemptively, and (d) evasive remarks that fail to acknowledge the partner or that fail to recognize the conflict. All of these behaviors are obnoxious to some degree, and they tend to inflame, rather than to resolve, conflict. Satisfied partners engage in these behaviors less often than discontented, disgruntled partners do, and married couples who routinely fight in such a manner are much more likely to divorce than are those who rarely act this way (Birditt et al., 2010).

Surly interaction has more damaging effects when it gets under your skin. Cantankerous conflict that involves the abrasive elements of contempt, defen- siveness, stonewalling, or belligerence annoys, exasperates, or infuriates most of us, and those emotional reactions engender physiological arousal and stress. Crabby, cranky interactions have real physical impact; they increase our heart rates and blood pressures, dump stress hormones into our bloodstreams, and depress our immune functions so that we are more susceptible to infection (Loving et al., 2006). When they are exposed to a cold virus under controlled conditions in a lab, people who have recently been experiencing chronic con- flict at home are two-and-a-half times more likely to catch a cold and get sick (Cohen et al., 2003). Wounds even heal more slowly after hostile interactions with one’s spouse (Gouin et al., 2010). Worse, these effects may accumulate over time; a study of more than 9,000 people in England over a span of 12 years found that those who encountered a lot of surly conflict in their close relation- ships were more likely to have heart attacks (De Vogli et al., 2007).

Ill-tempered petulance from one partner routinely gets the other (at least somewhat) angry, too. (Be sure not to skip the box on “Mastering Our Anger” three pages back.) But surly conflict turns especially fractious when the partners fall into a pattern of negative affect reciprocity in which the partners trade escalating provocations back and forth. This pattern is not often found in happy, well-adjusted couples (who do a better job of exiting the cycle when things start to heat up), but it is routinely exhibited by distressed, dissatisfied couples in deteriorating partnerships (Gottman et al., 1998): One person’s testiness makes the other partner peevish, so he or she snaps back; the first person becomes more aggravated, and the second exhange is more noxious. Stronger words are shared, both partners fan the flames of the other’s irritation, and both of them become increasingly angry and embittered as the interaction proceeds.

High emotion of this sort makes conflict particularly corrosive, so it’s reas- suring that some of us are less likely than others to become so upset (Smith et al., 2011). People with secure attachment styles experience milder physiological responses to conflict than insecure people do (Powers et al., 2006). Compared to those who are high in either avoidance of intimacy (Overall et al., 2013) or anxi- ety about abandonment (Kim, 2006), people with secure styles of attachment are less angry, cooler and calmer, and more collaborative and optimistic when conflict arises. They bounce back from conflict, putting dissension behind them and returning to a positive state of mind, more quickly, too (Salvatore et al., 2011). People also tend to experience less stress during an episode of conflict when their partners are secure rather than insecure (Powers et al., 2006).

Nevertheless, for many of us, conflicts that escalate too far or too often have physical as well as psychological effects. And those physiological reactions may

be very influential; newlyweds who experience stronger surges of adrenalin when they discuss their conflicts are notably less likely to be happily married, or even married at all, 10 years later (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2003).

The Demand/Withdraw Pattern

Another unpleasant pattern of interaction that exacerbates conflict is the demand/withdraw pattern, in which “one partner engages in demanding forms of behavior, such as complaints, criticisms, and pressures for changes, while the other partner engages in withdrawing forms of behavior, such as half- hearted involvement, changing the topic, avoiding discussion, or even walk- ing away” (Eldridge & Baucom, 2012, p. 144). The pattern is objectionable in part because it is self-perpetuating. Frustrated by the withdrawer’s retreat, the demander is likely to become more insistent that the issue be addressed—but this increased pressure makes the withdrawer even more resistant and close- lipped, and the pattern continues. It’s a dysfunctional way to manage conflict that leaves the demander feeling disregarded and misunderstood, and over time, it undermines a couple’s satisfaction with their relationship (Eldridge & Baucom, 2012).

Men and women do not differ much in their other responses to conflict (Gayle et al., 2002), but there is a difference here: Around the world, women are the demanders and men the withdrawers more often than not (Christensen et al., 2006). Both men and women, in both heterosexual and same-sex cou- ples, sometimes withdraw when their partners want to discuss and change the status quo (Holley et al., 2010), but women are generally more likely than men to speak up and to initiate discussion of relationship problems (Denton & Burleson, 2007), and that puts them in the demander role more often. (Some of the evidence for that conclusion comes from sex differences on the Initiator Style Questionnaire. You can see where you stand with Table 11.2.)

Why do women demand and men withdraw? There are various possibili- ties. The pattern may emerge from the usual gender differences that distinguish men and women (Afifi et al., 2012). Women are encouraged to be communal and expressive whereas men are encouraged to be independent and autono- mous, and the demand/withdraw pattern may result from women seeking closeness and men defending their autonomy. Another explanation, the social structure hypothesis, argues that the demand/withdraw pattern results from pervasive differences in the power of men and women in society and marriage alike (Eldridge & Baucom, 2012). As we’ll see in chapter 12, men tend to have more power in heterosexual relationships than women do, and if you’re getting your way, you’re likely to resist change.

In fact, both of these explanations are, in the main, correct. Researchers study such issues by asking couples to have two discussions, one in which the woman wants change and another in which the man wants change. When either men or women have an issue they want to discuss, they tend to demand, and when their partners raise a concern, both men and women sometimes withdraw. To some degree, then, the demand/withdraw pattern simply depends on who’s pressing the issue (Holley et al., 2010). The data support both the gender differences and the social structure points of view (Baucom et al., 2010): Women press for desired change in a relationship more often than men do, men tend to withdraw more completely, and imbalances of power affect who is and who isn’t going to want to change the status quo.

Negotiation and Accommodation

Not all conflicts turn heated or ugly, and those that do ultimately simmer down. And when loving partners are finally cool-headed, negotiation usually occurs. The partners announce their positions and work toward a solution in a sensible manner. In a best-case scenario, each is responsive to the other and each feels validated by the other’s responses.3

3 For a refresher on responsiveness and validation, I invite you to look back in chapter 7 and in chapter 5, respectively.

Dan Canary and Sandra Lakey’s (2013) analysis of conflict tactics identified several ways in which partners can be nice to each other during their negotia- tions. Again, some of these are direct, openly addressing the issue, and another is indirect, skirting the issue but defusing ill feeling. Nice direct tactics include (a) showing a willingness to deal with the problem by accepting responsibil- ity or by offering concessions or a compromise; ( b) exhibiting support for the other’s point of view through paraphrasing; (c) offering self-disclosure with “I-statements”; and (d) providing approval and affection. An indirect tactic is friendly, non-sarcastic humor that lightens the mood. Snarky, aggressive humor that teases or ridicules others isn’t helpful, but witty good cheer that is respectful of others is very welcome in intimate conflict; it reduces angry emo- tion (Howland & Simpson, 2014), and when our partners use friendly humor in our discussions of conflict, we feel closer to them and are more satisfied with the solutions we reach (Winterheld et al., 2013). Some problems are easier to solve than others, of course, but the use of kind tactics such as these during conflict helps to protect and maintain a relationship (Gottman et al., 1998).

Here’s some more helpful advice for successful negotiation with a loved one. First, be optimistic. Expect that creative collaboration and your generous regard for each other will resolve (most of) your problem. Positive expectations will help you reach agreement (Liberman et al., 2010), whereas pessimism may just make things worse (DiPaola et al., 2010). Second, value your partner’s outcomes as well as your own. Problems are solved more successfully when the partners take each other’s perspectives, appreciate each other’s points of view (Rizkalla et al., 2008), and are glad when the other gets (most of ) what he or she wants (Gore & Cross, 2011). Promote a focus on the two of you as a couple instead of on each of you as separate individuals by always requesting that “we” do something instead of just telling your partner what to do; your partner will be less resistant to your sug- gestions when they’re always about us instead of just about him or her (Mitnick et al., 2009). Along those lines, don’t keep trying to resolve conflict by getting your partner to behave differently; instead, consider what you can do differently to improve things. Your partner is likely to be more satisfied—and more will- ing to cooperate with your efforts—when you’re visibly working to do better, too (Overall, 2012). Finally, take an occasional short break from your discussion, especially if anyone begins to get annoyed or irritated (Sanford & Grace, 2011). Leave the room for a few minutes and think about your disagreement “from the perspective of a neutral third party who wants the best for all involved; a person who sees things from a neutral point of view. How might this person think about the disagreement?” (Finkel et al., 2013, p. 1597). Not only will your negotiation go more smoothly when you return to it (Harinck & De Dreu, 2011), continued use of this “third party” perspective is likely to leave you with a happier relation- ship a year later (Finkel et al., 2013).

Obviously, then, some responses to conflict are destructive, undermining a relationship, and others are constructive, helping to sustain it. Add this distinction to the difference between engaging a conflict and avoiding it that we encountered earlier, and you’ve got four different types of responses to conflict and dissat- isfaction in a relationship that were introduced to relationship science by Caryl Rusbult and her colleagues (1982). Take a look at Figure 11.3; the four categories differ in being either active or passive and in being either constructive or destructive:

1. Voice is behaving in an active, constructive manner by trying to improve the situation by discussing matters with the partner, changing one’s behavior in an effort to solve the problem, or obtaining advice from a friend or therapist.

2. Loyalty is behaving in a passive but constructive manner by optimistically waiting and hoping for conditions to improve.

3. Exit is behaving in an actively destructive manner by leaving the partner, threatening to end the relationship, or engaging in abusive acts such as yelling or hitting.

4. Neglect is behaving in a passive but destructive manner by avoiding dis- cussion of critical issues and reducing interdependence with the partner. When one is neglectful, one stands aside and just lets things get worse.

If a relationship has been satisfying and their investments in it are high, people are more likely to employ the constructive responses of voice and loy- alty than to neglect the relationship or exit from it (Rusbult et al., 1982). We typically seek to maintain relationships to which we are committed. And when that’s the case, voice is more beneficial and productive than loyalty: Unlike voice, which communicates interest and concern and typically gets a positive, productive response from one’s partner, loyalty often just goes unnoticed and does no good (Overall et al., 2010b). Exit is even worse, of course, and it’s more frequently employed when attractive alternative partners are available; people are more likely to bail out of a struggling relationship than to work to sustain it when tempting alternatives exist (Rusbult et al., 1982).

When both partners choose destructive responses to conflict, a relationship is at risk (Rusbult et al., 1986), so the ability to remain constructive in the face of a lover’s temporary disregard, which I identified as accommodation back in chapter 6 (on page 209), is a valuable gift. When partners behave destructively, accommodation involves inhibiting the impulse to fight fire with fire and striv- ing to react instead with calm forbearance. I’ll mention accommodation again in chapter 14; for now, I’ll simply note that couples who are able to swallow occasional provocation from each other without responding in kind tend to be happier than are those who are less tolerant and who always bite back (Rusbult et al., 1998).

Dealing with Conflict: Four Types of Couples

Does the desirability of accommodation mean that you and your partner should avoid arguing with each other? Not at all. Even heated arguments can be constructive, and some couples who engage in forceful, robust arguments have stable, satisfying marriages. Arguments support or erode a couple’s satis- faction depending on the manner in which they are conducted.

Marriage researcher John Gottman (1993, 1994a, 1999) studied conflict for years. In a typical procedure, he had couples discuss a continuing disagree- ment and then carefully inspected recordings of the resulting interactions. His results led him to suggest that there are three discrete approaches to con- flict that can lead to stable and enduring marriages. (Does one of them fit you well? Before you read further, I invite you to assess your own conflict type using the box on the next page. Really, stop here, and head over to the box.)

Volatile couples have frequent and passionate arguments. They plunge into fiery efforts to persuade and influence each other, and they often display high levels of negative affect, but they temper their anger with plenty of wit and evident fondness for each other.

Validators fight more politely. They tend to be calmer than volatile couples are, and they behave more like collaborators than like antagonists as they work through their problems. Their discussions may become heated, but they fre- quently validate each other by expressing empathy for, and understanding of, the other’s point of view.

In contrast to volatiles and validators, avoiders rarely argue. They avoid confrontation, and if they do discuss their conflicts, they do so mildly and gin- gerly. As Gottman (1993, p. 10) reported:

The interviewer had a great deal of difficulty setting up the conflict discussion.......................... Once each person has stated his or her case, they tend to see the discussion as close to an end. They consider accepting these differences as a complete discussion. Once they understand their differences, they feel that the common ground and values they share overwhelm these differences and make them unimportant and easy to accept. Hence, there is very little give and take and little attempt to persuade one another. The discussion has very little emotion, either positive or negative. Often the proposed solutions to issues are quite nonspecific.

Rather than discuss a conflict with their partners, avoiders often just try to fix it on their own or wait it out, hoping that the passage of time will solve the problem. Although they are very different, Gottman asserted that all three types of couples can last because they all maintain a high ratio of rewards to costs in their approaches to conflict. Volatile couples exchange a lot of negative emo- tion, but they balance the scales with even more affection and humor. Avoiders aren’t particularly effusive or amiable, but they don’t have a lot of negative vibes to overcome. As long as the positive, accepting components of their interactions substantially outnumber the negative, quarrelsome ones––you may recall from chapter 6 that an acceptable ratio is a minimum of 5 positive exchanges for every 1 negative––couples can fight loudly and do little damage to their relationship.

In some couples, however, arguments are harmful, caustic events. For Gottman, hostiles are couples who fail to maintain a 5-to-1 ratio of nice behav- ior to nasty conduct. Their discussions are sprinkled with too much criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and withdrawal, and the longer they last, the more oppressive they become. Some hostile couples actively address their disagree- ments but do so badly whereas others remain more detached and uninvolved but snipe at each other in brief salvos of distaste. But whether or not they are actively arguing, hostiles are simply meaner to each other than other couples are, and that’s why their conflicts are dangerous for their relationships.

Do the data support Gottman’s assertions? A sizable survey of almost 2,000 married couples found that in 24 percent of them, at least one of the spouses fought with a hostile style, and sure enough, those couples were less satisfied and had more problems than anyone else (Busby & Holman, 2009). The most common pattern, occurring in 25 percent of the marriages, was for both spouses to have validating styles, and they were the most content of the bunch. In fact, the calm, empathic, and respectful approach of validators was always advan- tageous; in another third of the couples, a validator was paired with someone who was volatile or avoidant, and those couples were pretty happy, too. Cou- ples in which both spouses were avoiders (2 percent of the sample) or vola- tile (5 percent) were rather rare, and that’s probably a good thing: They were less satisfied with their marriages than the couples in which (at least some) validation occurred. So, Gottman’s analysis is fairly sound. Heated arguments do not necessarily do harm to intimate relationships, especially when they are conducted with some empathy and respect. Real passion is not to be feared as long as it’s leavened with regard for one’s partner; a big conflict might lead to a big problem getting fixed (Sanford, 2014). But under no circumstances should you allow a conflict discussion to become sour, sarcastic, and surly. Conflict is corrosive when it becomes venomous and acidic (Woodin, 2011).

11.3 THE OUTCOMES OF CONFLICT

Ending Conflict

Eventually, conflicts end. Peterson (2002) described five ways in which conflicts can end, and I’ll consider them in an order that ranges roughly from the most destructive and damaging to the most constructive and beneficial. (They’re charted for you back in Figure 11.2.)

Separation occurs when one or both partners withdraw without resolving the conflict. Separation that ends a heated encounter may prevent irreparable harm to the relationship, and time apart may give combatants time to cool off and to think about their situation more constructively. It offers no solutions to a couple’s problem, however, and may simply delay further discord.

Other conflicts end in conquest. In domination, one partner gets his or her way when the other capitulates. This happens routinely when one person is more powerful than the other, and the more powerful partner will typically be pleased with the outcome. Domination is aversive for the loser, however, often breeding ill will and resentment (Zacchilli et al., 2009).

Compromise occurs when both parties reduce their aspirations so that a mutually acceptable alternative can be found. As Peterson suggested (2002,

p. 380), the partners’ “interests are diluted rather than reconciled”; neither part- ner gets everything he or she wants, but neither goes empty handed. This may be the best outcome available when one person’s gain can come only at the expense of the other, but in other situations, better solutions are usually available.

Integrative agreements satisfy both partners’ original goals and aspira- tions, usually through creativity and flexibility. They’re not easy to reach and typically take some work; partners may need to refine and prioritize their wishes, make selective concessions, and invent new ways of attaining their goals that do not impose upon their partners. Nevertheless, through determi- nation, ingenuity, imagination, and generous cooperation, partners can often get the things they really want.

Finally, on occasion, the partners not only get what they want but also learn and grow and make desirable changes to their relationship. This pleasant out- come, structural improvement, isn’t frequent, and when it occurs, it may result from significant turmoil and upheaval. Partners may have encountered perilous stress and serious conflict to reach a point that leads them to rethink their hab- its and to muster both the courage and the will to change them. Still, structual improvement leaves a couple better off. As Peterson (2002, p. 382) wrote:

Some change will take place in one or more of the causal conditions govern- ing the relationship. Each person will know more about the other than before. Each person may attribute more highly valued qualities to the other than before. Having weathered the storm of previous conflict, each person may trust the other and their relationship more than before, and thus be willing to approach other previously avoided issues in a more hopeful and productive way. With these changes, the quality of the relationship will be improved over many situations and beyond the time of the immediate conflict with which the process began.

Can Fighting Be Good for a Relationship?

Is Peterson right? Can fighting sometimes yield beneficial results? Perhaps. As we near the end of this chapter, you may still feel that it would be bet- ter not to have quarrels, disagreements, and arguments in your intimate relationships. Some people certainly feel that way, believing that “disagree- ment is destructive” and that an argument is a sure sign that one’s love is flawed (Eidelson & Epstein, 1982). But (as we noted back in chapter 4) that’s a dysfunctional belief that is correlated with dissatisfaction, and relationship scientists generally take a different view. They recognize that the more unex- pressed nuisances and irritants partners have, the less satisfied with their relationships they tend to be. Newlyweds who withdraw from conflict with- out resolving their disagreements tend to be less happy years later (Noller 2012). And even more remarkably, middle-aged women who fail to speak up when something about their marriages is bothering them are four times more likely than their more vocal neighbors to die within the next 10 years (Eaker et al., 2007). Conflict is inevitable and it should not be ignored.

Indeed, the prevailing view among conflict researchers is that, for all the dilemmas it creates, conflict is an essential tool with which to promote intimacy. (John Gottman [1994b, p. 159] counseled, “The most important advice I can give to men who want their marriages to work is to try not to avoid conflict.”) Conflict brings problematic issues and incompatibilities into the open, allowing solutions to be sought. Romantic illusions that idealize a relationship and mini- mize its flaws help us stay happy when the partnership is sound and its prob- lems are minor—but they’re treacherous when a relationship has major defects and they keep us from understanding the truth (McNulty, 2010). Indeed, rec- ognizing real problems and being critical of them is the right thing to do when the problems are severe (McNulty & Russell, 2010). Handled well, conflict can defuse situations that would only fester and cause bigger problems later on. If you confront conflict head-on, there’s no guarantee that your difficulties will be resolved and that contentment will follow (Fincham & Beach, 1999). Neverthe- less, it is usually the deft and skillful management of conflict—not the absence of conflict—that allows relationships to grow and prosper (Fincham, 2003).

Of course, for many of us, this is easier said than done. We tend to bring the lessons we learned at home as teenagers with us into our adult romances (Whitton et al., 2008), and people clearly differ in the sensitivity and dexterity with which they manage conflict (Zeidner & Kloda, 2013). In particular, boys who witness violent conflict between their parents tend to become men who handle conflict poorly, being more surly and sarcastic than their peers (Halford et al., 2000).

However, couples who are fighting badly do sometimes clean up their act. A study that followed couples as they became parents found that most of them maintained the same style of conflict over a span of 2 years; about half of them fought constructively, using plenty of validation and positive affect, and a quarter of them fought poorly, wallowing in antagonism and sour dissen- sion for the full 24 months. In most cases, once you and your partner develop a style for managing conflict, it’s likely to last (Kamp Dush & Taylor, 2012). Still, about 20 percent of the young parents who had been fighting destructively changed their styles and became less cantankerous—and more satisfied with their relationships—over that span of time (Houts et al., 2008).

If you’re fighting unpleasantly now, you can probably change, too, and I have some suggestions in this regard. First, for most of us, successful conflict management involves self-control. To the extent that you work at remaining opti- mistic, avoiding blaming attributions, and mastering your anger, you’re more likely to be tolerant, flexible, and creative, and integrative agreements are more likely to be reached (Canary & Lakey, 2013). Self-control may also be required for you to successfully execute this list of don’ts drawn from Gottman’s (1994b) work:

• Don’t withdraw when your partner raises a concern or complaint. Defensively avoiding a discussion of conflict is obnoxious and it doesn’t fix anything. It’s fair to ask that a difficult discussion be rescheduled for a more convenient time, but you should then feel obligated to honor that appointment.

• Don’t go negative. Stifle your sarcasm, contain your contempt, and discard your disgust. Churlish, surly, and sour behavior has very corrosive effects on close relationships because (as you’ll recall from chapter 6)4 bad is stron- ger than good.

• Don’t get caught in a loop of negative affect reciprocity. This is essential. Pay attention, and when you realize that you and your part- ner are hurling stronger and stronger insults and accusations back and forth, stop. Take a 10-minute break, gather yourself, calm down, and return to your discussion with an apology for the last disagreeable thing you said.

A very good way to steer clear of bad-tempered, ill-mannered interaction is to employ a technique that’s taught by marriage therapists to help couples manage conflict constructively (Markman et al., 1994). The speaker-listener technique provides a structure for calm, clear communication about contentious issues that promotes the use of active listening skills and increases the chances that partners will understand and validate each other despite their disagree- ment. In particular, the speaker-listener technique is designed to interrupt the cycle of misperception that too often occurs when partners respond quickly to one another without checking their understanding of the other’s intent.

To use the technique, the partners designate a small object as the floor. (See Table 11.3.) Whoever has the floor is the speaker. That partner’s job is to con- cisely describe his or her feelings using “I-statements”; the listener’s job is to lis- ten without interrupting and then to paraphrase the speaker’s message. When the speaker is satisfied that his or her feelings have been understood, the floor changes hands and the partners switch roles. This patient pattern of careful communication allows the partners to demonstrate their concern and respect for each other’s feelings without falling into a noxious cycle of self-justification, mind reading, interruption, and defensiveness (Cornelius & Alessi, 2007).

If you strive to follow these suggestions, you’ll probably manage conflict well. And when a conflict discussion is complete, you can grade your collabo- ration using a scorecard developed by George Bach and Peter Wyden (1983) known as the “Fight Effects Profile.” (See Table 11.4.) If you have a “good” fight that has the positive effects listed in the table, your fight is likely to be good for your relationship.

I’m not underestimating how hard it is to fight fair and to have a “good” fight. It requires self-discipline and genuine caring about one’s partner. But the positive outcomes are usually worth the effort. From this perspective, instead of being a dreadful problem, conflict is a challenging opportunity—a chance to learn about one’s partner and oneself, and a possibility for one’s relationship to become more satisfying and more intimate. Strive to fight fairly, and consider using the Fight Effects Profile to grade your efforts the next time conflict puts your communication skills to the test.

11.4 FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

John’s wife, Tina, is a bit hot headed. When something bothers her, she wants to drop everything else and work on the problem, but she tends to do so with high emotion. She has a volatile temper; she gets angry easily, but she cools off just as fast. John is more placid, and he dislikes conflict. When he gets angry, he does so slowly, and he simmers rather than erupts. When there’s something bothering him, he prefers to just go off by himself and play video games instead of beginning a discussion that could turn into a fight.

Lately, Tina has become very frustrated because John is close-lipped and unresponsive when she brings up a complaint. His reluctance to discuss her grievances is just making her annoyance and dissatisfaction worse. Having read this chapter, what do you think the future holds for Tina and John? Why?

11.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY

The Nature of Conflict

What Is Conflict? Interpersonal conflict occurs when people have to give up something that they want because of their partners’ influence. Conflict is ines- capable. There are tensions known as dialectics that are woven into the fabric of close relationships that will, sooner or later, always cause some strain.

The Frequency of Conflict. Conflict occurs often. Its frequency is associ- ated with neuroticism and agreeableness, attachment styles, one’s stage of life, incompatibility between partners, poor sleep, and alcohol use.

The Course of Conflict

Instigating Events. Four different categories of events cause most con- flicts; these are criticism, illegitimate demands, rebuffs, and cumulative annoyances.

Attributions. Actor-observer effects and self-serving biases contribute to attributional conflict, with partners fighting over whose explanation is right.

Engagement and Escalation. Once an instigating event occurs, partners must decide either to engage in conflict or to avoid the issue and let it drop. If escalation occurs and the conflict heats up, the nasty things that partners say to each other may be either direct or indirect. Surly interaction becomes especially fractious when the partners fall into a pattern of negative affect reciprocity.

The Demand/Withdraw Pattern. A frustrating demand/withdraw cycle occurs when one person approaches the other about a problem, and the partner responds by avoiding the issue. Women tend to be the demanders and men the withdrawers more often than not.

Negotiation and Accommodation. Negotiation finally occurs when a couple works toward a solution in a sensible manner. Voice, loyalty, exit, and neglect are other responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships. Accommoda- tion occurs when partners react with calm forbearance to the other’s provocation.

Dealing with Conflict: Four Types of Couples. Volatile couples have fre- quent and passionate arguments. Validators have calmer, more relaxed discus- sions, and avoiders avoid confrontation. In contrast, the conflicts of hostiles are marked by negativity, and their marriages are relatively fragile.

The Outcomes of Conflict

Ending Conflict. There are five ways conflicts can end: separation, domination, compromise, integrative agreement, and structural improvement.

Can Fighting Be Good for a Relationship? Yes. Deft management of conflict allows relationships to grow and prosper. The speaker-listener technique provides a structure for calm, clear communication about touchy topics.

未完待续，持续更新中

The series continues to be updated...

Chapter 1 The Building Blocks of Relationships （I）【121777】

Chapter 1 The Building Blocks of Relationships （II）【152979】

Chapter 2 Research Methods 【596719】

Chapter 3 Attraction （I）【431743】

Chapter 3 Attraction （II）【213329】

Chapter 4 Social Cognition（I）【607185】

Chapter 4 Social Cognition（II）【388771】

Chapter 5 Communication (I) 【261909】

Chapter 5 Communication (II) 【230707】

Chapter 6 Interdependency 【228653】

Chapter 7 Friendship 【166249】

Chapter 8 Love 【240092】

Chapter 9 Sexuality 【598969】

Chapter 10 Stresses and Strains（I）【251315】

Chapter 10 Stresses and Strains（II）【438527】

Chapter 11 Conflict

Chapter 12 Power and Violence

Chapter 13 The Dissolution and Loss of Relationships

Chapter 14 Maintaining and Repairing Relationships