COM2006 WK4 Project

Nurturing vs. Toxic Relationships

Relationships are created, maintained, and even dissolved through communication. Beebe et al. (2017)

explain that relationship forming and maintaining is done by both partners who decide on the merits or

drawbacks using a cost–bene�t analysis. In other words, the estimated costs of the relationship are

weighed against the estimated bene�ts of the relationship to determine whether you stay in or leave a relationship. That being said, how do you explain why someone would stay in a toxic relationship?

First, this discussion about toxic relationships implies more than relationship challenges or failures to

have needs met in the relationship. Toxic relationships are characterized as having some elements of

harm to either or both partners. Harm may be in the form of a mental or physical abuse or an

emotional damage.

Now, let's examine different behaviors and communications that can characterize a toxic relationship. Beebe et al. (2017) identify several factors—deceiving, jealousy, criticizing, discon�rming, withdrawing,

and abusing both mentally and physically. Oftentimes, there is also relational violence in toxic

relationships. These authors also claim that "acts of relational violence communicate anger,

frustration, lack of control, and disregard for a partner and the relationship, while instilling fear and

engendering retaliation, counterattacks, and subversion" (Beebe et al., 2017, p. 283).

Obviously, there is a degree of severity in a toxic relationship, which is determined by the degree of

harm to one or both of the people involved. Even when there is a signi�cant degree of harm, sometimes people chose to stay in the relationship. Why?

The social exchange theory is an interpersonal communication theory about costs and bene�ts that

may help you understand what is happening. Thibault and Kelley (1952), in their seminal book, The Social Psychology of Groups, explain that people estimate what rewards and costs they would incur from the outcomes of interpersonal interactions and situations. People have a natural tendency to

increase rewards or move toward situations that seem to have rewards and move away from situations that are estimated to incur costs. Therefore, in case of toxic relationships, why someone stays in a

severe toxic relationship may be better understood if viewed by the social exchange theory.

In this case, the injured person may be staying in the relationship because the cost of leaving is

perceived to be higher than the cost of staying. If this is the reason, then there is a greater tendency to

avoid interaction with the relationship partner or �ght back by engaging in a similar toxic behavior,

thereby creating a circular pattern that is often hard to break. It is advisable for people in these types of toxic relationships to get professional help to either break the toxic communication patterns or help

the harmed party leave the relationship.

If the relationship is only mildly toxic and has not escalated to severe relational violence, then there is

a chance that the relationship could be saved. In order to develop a more nurturing relationship, both

parties need to be committed to being open and honest and have a great desire to save the

relationship. The �rst step is the honest disclosure of what has happened and how and why each

person feels the way he or she does. Acknowledging the transgression(s) is the starting point. The second step is starting the process of forgiveness.

Forgiveness is seen as necessary for relationship repair (Waldron & Kelley, 2005). Forgiving

communication is about authentically communicating one's intentions and interpretations and by

listening to his or her partner even though it may be hurtful or uncomfortable. Fishbane (1998)

advocates a dialogic approach to couple's therapy because most often couples enter the therapy polarized and disconnected. Couples can also become disenchanted because of the end of the

"honeymoon period" where "love is blind" and couples are in the phase of their relationship where

�aws are not obscured and idealized images are fractured.

Oftentimes, the cause of couples disconnecting with each other can be precipitated by a transgression,

such as in�delity or lies or any hurtful acts or talk, and usually by the time couples come to therapy, all

they can see is their own pain. The same thing can happen to people in friendships where harmful acts and miscommunication can cause people to pull away. Turning away from another, for whatever

reason, further entrenches the person in the "I" focus steeped in the emotions of being wronged by

another. It is only when the person, who has been transgressed, can move past how he or she was hurt

or betrayed, he or she can truly see another and begin to relate in relation and start the process of

repairing the relationship (Fishbane, 1998). These ideas pose forgiveness as having a dialogic

orientation.

Metaphorically, conceptualizing the act of forgiveness as a dance implies that both parties contributed to the act of transgression in some way and that both parties are important to forgiveness, and, thus,

framing forgiveness as intersubjective or the experience of it emerging from both persons in the

relationship, rather than framing the process of forgiveness as being unidirectional action—

transgressed granting transgressor forgiveness. Dialogue, rather than a typical rhetorical situation

where one is persuaded to adopt another's belief, idea, or point of view, focuses on meeting the other

person where both are focused on how to repair the damaged relationship and discovering new meanings or ideas of how to forgive together (Brown, 2011).

References:

Brown, L. (2011). It's not just about you: A dialogic approach to forgiveness. Con�ict & Communication Online, 10(1), 12–25.

Fishbane, D. M. (1998). I, thou, and we: A dialogical approach to couples therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 24(1), 41–58.

Thibault, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1952). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Waldron, V., & Kelley, D. (2005). Forgiving communication as a response to relational transgressions.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(6), 723–742.