I'm Dr. Marc Attala, and I want to welcome you to the 10th chapter of Bradbury and Carney's Intimate Relationships book. So today we'll be discussing conflict. So why do lovers disagree? How are disagreements different in happy and unhappy couples? What are some of the patterns of disagreements that people have?
And how is this explained by attachment theory? But let's get started by discussing why lovers disagree. So people can't always get what they want, but they get what they need.
I think that's a Rolling Stones song. And this leads to conflict. And this is when one person's goals interfere with those of another person. Now, conflicts of interest are inevitable, but they don't have to be destructive.
Researchers aren't interested so much in the topics of disagreement that people argue about, but rather how people disagree, because that tends to be the most consequential thing for relationships. Just to get us to say at the start, clear and honest communication is best, even if it's negative. But we'll talk about that at the end. While there was a spike in divorces after World War II, divorce reached its peak around 1980. Now, social exchange theorists studied what couples were actually doing to make each other miserable. And what they found was that unresolved conflicts tend to accumulate, unpleasant exchanges begin to outnumber rewarding ones, and relationship dissatisfaction increases.
Now, most couples have no trouble identifying their biggest complaints and are happy to voice them, even with researchers who have their cameras rolling. Injecting negative emotion can amplify the impact of words, and so statements are coded for the affect, meaning emotional tone that accompanies them. And I put up at the end there an example from my cognitive psychology class.
So you can have a sentence like, I wouldn't pay to hear him sing. And depending on where the affect is, it changes the meaning of the sentence. So I might say, I wouldn't pay to hear him sing, meaning other people might.
I wouldn't pay to hear him sing. I mean, I might do it for free. I wouldn't pay to hear him sing.
I pay to hear other people sing, but not that guy. And I wouldn't pay to hear him sing, you know, so maybe juggling or something I'd pay to see, but not singing. And so affect makes a big difference. According to Gottman's structural model of marital interaction, the interactions of unhappy couples can be characterized by three things. One, and these are pretty obvious, one is less positive behavior and more negative behavior.
Unhappy couples are 10 times more likely to use a negative tone of voice. Two, greater predictability of behaviors between partners. So their arguing is stuck in a rut. No matter how the argument starts, they unfold the same way, and they end in the same place.
So in the couple to the right, she's saying, as we see in the 90s, she's telling them to talk to the hand because that's how the argument's going to end. That's how all their arguments end. And so they tend to end up in the same place.
And number three, longer cycles of reciprocal negative behavior. So that unhappy couples tend to be mean to each other for longer periods of time. which is not very constructive. If happy and unhappy couples are both discussing difficult topics, then why are happy couples making better choices?
Well, one idea is what's called cognitive editing. And that's when people hear something negative, but they respond back in a neutral or positive way, that their partner's negativity is edited out. And I think that that really works well, because you don't have to...
You don't have to just escalate an argument. You can just try to diffuse it. The reactivity hypothesis is that unhappy partners are more sensitive to daily hassles.
And so they take it out on their partner, basically. And they don't even realize that it was the daily hassle that caused it. Misattribution of arousal, which we've talked about several times.
And actually, people can't even agree on what they were arguing about or what caused it, which kind of gives some credence. So there's one technique called table talk, and it pinpoints the source of a couple's miscommunication by structuring a problem-solving discussion. Now, I couldn't imagine an actual couple ever using this in their arguments, but one partner begins the conversation and presses a button that rates the intended impact of what is said.
So it goes from super negative to super positive, and then their partner rates the actual impact, how they feel about it, also some super negative to super positive. Unhappy couples rate the impact as relatively negative, and they're much more sensitive to things that they perceive as being negative. Couples must balance their different desires and preferences and work together to find a middle ground where both are sufficiently content.
Compromise. You know, people like to think of themselves as being uncompromising, but compromise is the only way relationships work. So one thing that's noted is this idea of a demand-withdraw pattern in couples. And so she's demanding and he's withdrawing in the picture to the right. From their individual perspectives, each partner is an innocent victim to their partner's unreasonable ideas about what it means to be in an intimate relationship.
Another factor is what's called polarization, which is exactly what it sounds like, which is that couples adopt opposing viewpoints to their argument and they become more polarized as they argue. And it's like, what am I arguing about? When discussing difficulties in their relationship, Women tend to want more change than men, and that difference is even greater in research studies when women are given the opportunity to air their grievances. So if you've ever heard of Festivus, one of the opportunities is the airing of grievances.
In looking at gay, lesbian, and straight relationships, women demand more and men withdraw more. And so that's what's happening in the picture to the right there too. She's being demanding and he is withdrawing. which makes her more upset probably too. Also, the demand-withdraw pattern is more extreme in relationships where people want a lot of change.
I may have already said that. Happy couples may be more inclined to compromise or less inclined to defend their point of view. So maybe that's why they get along. Couples who express a lot of strong negativity in their arguments, here comes a surprise.
So people who show hostility, name-calling, and verbal abuse have unhappy and unstable relationships. So you had to go to college to learn this. Anger and poor problem-solving skills have been shown to predict higher and lower levels of satisfaction with the relationship, which makes me say, huh, too, and maybe you feel the same way.
It's because, you know, people view arguments differently. You know, if you grew up where people are disagreeing with each other all the time, maybe you don't see it as an argument or you don't see it as any big deal. Direct statements that are specific and reasonable work best, even if they're negative, as I said earlier.
Because it makes it seem then that the person's trying to save the relationship, and they're just expressing how they feel. So let's finish things up, though, on a happy note, because those men are reconciling and working things out. So attachment theory relates to this, too. No surprises here, either. Secure people are skilled problem solvers, and people high in attachment-related anxiety or avoidance are going to have problems.
They tend to be poor problem solvers who show less positive emotion and more negative emotion, and those don't do well in relationships. So here's the takeaway from this chapter. Factors that seem far removed from a relationship may shape how people respond to conflict. That's chapter 10. Not a happy chapter, but I hope you have a great day.