Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Exam 3
Interpersonal Communication
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Spill-over effect | Suggests that these negative effects arise because parents who engage in dysfunctional conflict are also likely to have dysfunctional parenting styles |
| Socialization effect | Children adopt conflict styles similar to their parents’ conflict styles. Studies have shown that children actually fare better when feuding parents divorce compared to when they engage in increasingly negative patters of conflict communication. |
| The six conflict styles based on direct/indirect and uncooperative/cooperative dimensions | Competitive fighting, indirect fighting, compromising, avoiding, collaborating, yielding |
| Competitive fighting | direct and uncooperative; try to control the interaction to have more power than their partner.Attempt a win-lose situation -they win and partner loses.Tactics: confrontational remarks, personal criticisms, threats, name-calling, blaming the partner,etc. |
| Indirect Fighting | indirect and uncooperative; AKA passive aggression, related to patterns of negative withdrawal. Exs: failing to acknowledge or validate a partner’s concerns, ignoring, holding a grudge, giving the partner cold or dirty looks, etc. |
| Compromising | direct and moderately cooperative; involves searching for a fair,intermediate position that satisfies some or both partner’s needs.People need to give someup to reach a solution that will meet some of goals.Usually leads to a part-win-part-lose situation. |
| Avoiding | indirect style of conflict that is regarded as somewhat neutral in terms of how cooperative versus uncooperative it is; people using this style refrain from arguing and refuse to confront their partners in any meaningful way. |
| Collaborating | direct and cooperative; Focuses on cooperative problem solving and that helps people find creative solutions that satisfy both partners’ needs and lead to a win-win solution. Better option than compromising because both people have met their goals. |
| Yielding | cooperative and indirect; people who use this style forgo their own goals and desires in consideration of the partner; it glosses over differences, plays down disagreements, and trivializes conflict making effective conflict management difficult. |
| The Principle of Negative Reciprocity | a pattern of conflict interaction whereby aggression begets more aggression. Once one person uses competitive or indirect fighting, the other person is likely to follow suit. Patterns of negative reciprocity have even been found online. |
| Gunnysacking | Occurs when people store up old grievances and then dump them on their partner during a conflict. Rather than discussing each issue when it first surfaces, issues are placed in a metaphorical gunnysack and presented all at once. |
| Kitchen-sinking | Similar to gunnysacking, but occurs when people rehash tier old arguments when they get into a new argument. |
| Bringing in 3rd Parties (3 ways) | 1. People mention things that other people said as a form of evidence. 2. People can badmouth the partner’s friends or family. 3. Individuals compare their partner unfavorably to other people. |
| Negative conflict behaviors (3) | Gunnysacking, kitchen-sinking, bringing in third parties |
| Steps within Gottman’s Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse model (4) | Complants & criticism, contempt & disgust, defensiveness, stonewalling |
| Contempt & Disgust - 4HA | Criticism often leads to feelings of contempt and disgust. Disgust is usually communicated by sounding fed up, sickened, and repulsed. Contempt involves insult, mockery, sarcasm of the other person, and often a definite sense of distance and coldness. |
| Complaints & Criticism - 4HA | While some complaints can be healthy, these types of complaints continue over long periods and if they turn into criticisms, or are perceived as criticisms, Gottman suggests that he partner will start to feel contempt. |
| Defensiveness - 4HA | This stage includes denying responsibility for a problem issuing counter-complaints, making accusations, whining, and reading minds. Mind reading, occurs when people assume they know then partner’s feelings, motives, and behaviors. |
| Stonewalling - 4HA | At this point, interaction seems futile, and partners no longer are trying to work problems out. Typically men stonewall more frequently than women, and this often leads to the demand-withdrawal cycle. |
| Emotional flooding | occurs when people are “surprised, overwhelmed, and disorganized” by partner’s expression of negative emotions |
| Explanations for conflict patters | emotional flooding, button pushing, empty threats |
| Button pushing | we know where it hurts; we know partner’s issues; we know the words that hurt |
| Empty threats | caution: you could bring the idea of breaking up into partner’s awareness |
| Most common types of hurtful messages | evaluations, accusations, informative statements |
| Evaluation | “this relationship has been a waste of my time” |
| Accusation | “you’re a selfish and rude person” |
| Informative | “I only dated you because I was on the rebound” |
| Responses to hurtful messages | active verbal, acquiescent, invulnerable |
| Active verbal responses | confronting the partner through positive or negative communication (positive and constructive more likely in satisfying relationship) |
| Acquiescent responses | giving in and acknowledging the partner’s ability to hurt you |
| Invulnerable responses | acting unaffected by the hurtful remark (ignore the message, laugh it off, or withdraw) |
| Types of deception | e.g., lies/falsification, equivocation, concealment/omission, etc |
| Lies | the information given is opposite or clearly different from what the deceiver perceives as the truth (falsifications or fabrications) |
| Equivocation | the information given is indirect, evasive, and/or ambiguous (evasion) |
| Concealment | relevant information is omitted (omission) |
| Exaggeration | information is overstated; details are sometimes added (overstatement) |
| Understatement | information is understated; certain details are typically left out |
| Motives for deception | partner-focused, self-focused, relationship-focused |
| Partner-focused motives | avoid hurting partner, protect partner’s self-esteem, avoid worrying partner, protect partner’s relationship with another person |
| Self-focused | protect self-image, avoid other’s anger, avoid embarrassment, criticism, etc. |
| Relationship-focused motives | avoid relational harm, very complicated |
| Ways of discovering infidelity that have the most, least, and mid-range damage to the relationship | Find out from a 3rd party (high rel. damage,harder 2 forgive) Witness infidelity 1st hand (high rel. damage,harder 2 forgive) Partner admits to infidelity after questioning (middle) Partner tells you on own (least rel. damage,easier 2 forgive) |
| Cues to emotional infidelity | Expressing rel. dissatisfaction,Emotional disengagement, Passive rejection (inconsiderate or inattentive), Negative comm patterns (angry, critical,argumentative),Reluctance to spend time together, Reluctance to talk about a particular person,Guilty comm |
| Cues to sexual infidelity | • Indirect physical signs (makeup, weight, perfume on clothing) • Direct revelation (walking in on partner) • Changes in sexual behavior • Exaggerated affection • Sexual disinterest |
| Cues to both sexual and emotional infidelity | • Apathetic communication • Increased contact with third party |
| Romantic jealousy | occurs when an individual worries that a rival could interfere with the existence or quality of her/his relationship, a real or imagined threat |
| Envy | a person desires something another person has |
| Rivalry | two people compete for something that neither has |
| Appraisal Theory - Primary Appraisals | initial evaluations about the existence and quality of the threat (degree of threat) |
| Appraisal Theory - Secondary Appraisals | A bit more cognitive than primary... • Motives for partner’s behavior/interest • Comparisons to the rival • Evaluation of alternatives • Assessment of potential loss |
| Appraisal Theory - Reappraisal | reflection after talking with partner, other people, or just thinking |
| Communicative responses to jealousy (when goal is maintaining the relationship or reducing uncertainty) - most common!! | integrative and negative communication |
| Constructive responses and compensatory restoration | When people want to maintain the relationship and anger is not intense |
| Deny feelings | When people want to maintain self-esteem |
| Destructive responses | When people feel anger and want revenge |
| integrative communication, surveillance, rival contacts | When goal is to reduce uncertainty |
| Unrequited Love | a lover hopes for a relationship but the rejector resists |
| Common/Severe forms of ORI | • Calling and arguing • Calling and hanging up • Constantly asking for another chance • Watching loved ones from a distance • Exaggerated claims about affection • Stalking less common, but is threatening and induces fear |
| 5 Responses to ORI | o Passive o Avoidant o Aggressive o Integrative (confront and discuss works best) o Help seeking |
| Investment Model | Rests on the idea that commitment helps buffer relationships against the destruction that hurtful events and conflict can cause. |
| Remedial strategies after transgression (purpose) | o Focus on specific behaviors that people engage in to try and fix their relationship after they have done something wrong. o Attempts to correct problems, restore one’s positive face, or repair the relationship. |
| Types of remedial strategies | Apologies and concessions, appeasement, explanations, denials, avoidance and evasion, relationship talk |
| Remedial - Apologies and Concessions | - Expressing guilt and remorse, derogating oneself, promising to make up for the bad behavior, and promising never to engage in the transgression again. - Most effective when they are perceived as sincere, elicit empathy, and are given voluntarily. |
| Remedial -Appeasement | • Use integration strategies such as promising to make up for what they did. • Use soothing strategies, compliment partner, offer to do favors, spend more time with the partner, saying “I love you” more often, and buying the partner gifts and flowers. |
| Remedial -Explanations | - Use excuses or justifications, Excuses try to minimize resp. for neg behavior by focusing on inability to control own actions or shifting blame.Justifications try to minimize the negative imp. of the trans by denying behavior was wrong/severe. |
| Remedial -Denials | Transgressors argue that they should not be held accountable for their behavior or that a transgressions never occurred. Special types of excuse, one that is good enough for the transgressor to feel that a relational rule has not been broken. |
| Remedial -Avoidance and Evasion | Or silence, involve efforts to avoid discussing the transgression.Trans. who use this strategy report talking about problem makes it worse & its better to let the transg fade into background of the rel. & be minimized.Might refuse to give explanation. |
| Remedial -Relationship Talk | involves talking about the transgression within the larger context of the relationship. Can be relationship invocation or metatalk. |
| Relationship Talk - Relationship Invocation | involves expressing attitudes or beliefs about the relationship or using the qualities of the relationship as a back-drop for interpreting the transgression. |
| Relationship Talk - Metatalk | involves explicitly discussing the transgression’s effect on the relationship. |
| Relational reconciliation strategies | involves getting back together and rebuilding a relationship after a breakup or a falling out. |
| Types of relational reconciliation strategies | Explanation and disclosure, relationship references, promises, stage-setting, vulnerable appeals, direct requests, persistence, ultimatums, 3rd parties as facilitators of reconciliation |
| Reconciliation - Explanation and disclosure | This strategy involves communicating openly about why the relationship ended, how old problems can be fixed, & why it would be a good idea to reconcile. *OPEN COMMUNICATION!* |
| Reconciliation - Relationship References | Another common strategy is to remind the former partner of all the positive aspects of the former relationship. |
| Reconciliation - Promises | • The strategy of promises involves telling the partner how good the future relationship would be. • Seems designed to convince the ex-partner that their reestablished relationship would contain. |
| Reconciliation - Stage-setting | • This can be done by calling the partner on the phone and saying, “I need to see you.” • Can also reduce uncertainty and give people a feel for whether or not their former partner is amendable to a reconciliation attempt. |
| Reconciliation - Vulnerable appeals | When partners use this, they let their ex-partners know how much they miss them and want to be with them again. |
| Reconciliation - Direct requests | • This strategy is likely used with some of the other strategies mentioned here. • “Would you like to try dating again?” |
| Reconciliation - Ultimatums | “This is it. It’s now or never,” to try to force a decision about reconciliation. |
| Reconciliation - Persistence | Can be when a partner is patiently waiting for the ex-partner to come back or continually asking the ex-partner to give the relationship another chance. |
| Reconciliation - 3rd parties | Enact a 3rd party as a facilitator of reconciliation |
| Duck’s model of the disengagement process | Intrapsychic, Dyadic, Social, Gravedressing, Resurrection |
| Duck - Intrapsychic | Rel. dissatisfaction triggers processes that involve reflecting on neg. aspects of the rel. & comparing these flaws w/ costs of leaving the rel.Also involves preparing to talk to partner abt probs.People sometimes realize probs are not as bad as thought. |
| Duck - Dyadic-Dyadic | Occur when dissatisfied partner comm negative thoughts & feelings.Partners attempt to negotiate & reconcile diffs to avert breakup.Arguments & long discussions characterize this phase.May also renegotiate rules,promise to change,or improve behavior. |
| Duck - Social Processes | “Going public” about the distress and problems within one’s relationship marks the social processes phase. Couples talk to their social networks and investigate alternatives to the current relationship. |
| Duck - Gravedressing | This set of processes focuses on coping with a breakup in a socially acceptable manner. If breakup initiator, might emphasize that you handled the breakup in a sensitive and caring manner. If dumped, might assure people that you are strong/will be okay. |
| Duck - Resurrection | After a breakup, people often visualize what their future will look like without their old relationship. To prepare for that future, they construct and communicate a new image of themselves as wise as a result of their experiences. |
| Types of Breakup Strategies | Unilateral-Indirect,Unilateral-Direct, Bilateral-Indirect, Bilateral-Direct |
| Types of Unilateral-Indirect Breakup Strategies | Avoidance, relational ruses, withdrawal of support and affection, psuedo de-escalation, cost escalation |
| Unilateral-Indirect - Avoidance | “just slip out the back, Jack" ;Decreased frequency of contact.Occurs when little likelihood of maintain future friendship,intimacy is low,fewer formal ties,perceived faults of partner are high & when the dumper has avoidant attach style. |
| Unilateral-Indirect - Relational Ruses | Disengagers sometimes use strategies that are downright unethical or manipulative, such as relational ruses.Leaking the impending breakup to a friend or asking a third party to announce the disengagement, pretending to be interested in someone else,etc. |
| Unilateral-Indirect - Withdrawal of Support & Affection | A common disengagement strategy involves withdrawing positive forms of comm such as social support, emotional support,affection, & immediacy. Social support withdrawal means the disengager is unavailable to discuss problems/provide comfort & compassion. |
| Unilateral-Indirect - Pseudo De-Escalation | A false declaration 2 other party that relationship would profit from distance that masquarades as de-escalation but is a disguised rel. breakup & can result in “break” rather than “breakup.”Deceptive,unethical act that shows lil regard 4 one’s partner. |
| Unilateral-Indirect - Cost Escalation | AKA Machiavellianism strategies,an attempt to make the relationship unattractive to partner.Disengagers may drink/smoke excessively, be deliberately messy, obnoxious, rude, etc. so partner comes to dislike the disengager & more amenable to breakup. |
| Types of Unilateral-Direct Breakup Strategies | The direct dump, dating other people, justification, relationship-talk trick, threats and bullying, positive tone, de-escalation |
| Unilateral-Direct - The Direct Dump | Most common direct communication strategy is the simple statement that the relationship is over.Sometimes called the open-and-honest approach;people forthrightly communicate desire to end the relationship.Gives partner no choice/chance for a response. |
| Unilateral-Direct - Dating Other People | This strategy, which is sometimes called negative identity management, imposes one person’s solution on the other person at the expense of the recipients’ feelings. |
| Unilateral-Direct - Justification | This common strategy includes explanations for why the relationship is ending, why the partner is dissatisfied, or for changes that have occurred in the partners or in the relationship.Ex. - desire for autonomy/appeals to independence |
| Unilateral-Direct - The Relationship-Talk Trick | Some disengagers talk about relationship “problems” as a guise for a relationship breakup. In other words, the breakup initiator intentionally structures the relational talk to show that the partners are better off going their separate ways. |
| Unilateral-Direct - Threats and Bullying | Manipulation attempts to get a partner to break up. Sometimes people use these strategies when a partner refuses to break up with them. |
| Unilateral-Direct - Positive Tone | Designed to lessen the “dumped” person’s hurt feelings and make him or her feel better about the breakup. |
| Unilateral-Direct - De-escalation | Avoid a complete breakup, at least initially, by scaling back a relationship. These strategies are an honest attempt to improve the relationship by de-escalating it; recommends relational separation temporarily or recommends that “we just be friends.” |
| Bilateral-Indirect - Fading Away | Sometimes both people in a relationship recognize that the relationship is at a standstill, and they gradually drift apart and lose contact. |
| Types of Bilateral-Direct Breakup Strategies | The Blame Game and The Negotiated Farewell |
| Bilateral-Direct - The Blame Game | Cycles of negativity become a prevalent pattern; both partners become dissatisfied, & the relationship is charged with neg. emotion. When partners talk about their problems, they end up complaining & blaming each other rather than taking responsibility. |
| Bilateral-Direct - The Negotiated Farewell | Both parties are willing to try to be fair to each other during the disengagement process (in direct contrast to the attitude of those playing the blame game).The goal is to leave the relationship “well” rather than on a sour note. |
Created by:
caitlinlandsman
Popular Anthropology sets