Analyzing Interpersonal Relationships and Conflict Styles, Part 1 $ 2

Analyzing Interpersonal Relationships and Conflict Styles,
Part 1 (use DeVito, 2013, p. 152), 4 questions
and
Part 2 (use DeVito, 2013, p. 161).
About 1 - 1.5 pages total written response.
Written Assignment: Analyzing Interpersonal Relationships & Conflict Styles
Part I:
Review the Skill Development Experience on page 152 of your textbook. For the four questions
provided, write a concise reflection for each question.
Part II:
On page 161 of your textbook, different conflict styles are described. Using the questions provided in
Table 8.1, write a concise reflection about which style describes you best. Consider how adopting a
different style may be positive or negative for you.
Both Parts I & II should be included in the same Word (.docx) file and should total about one doublespaced page in length. *Book page 151* ● acknowledge each other’s individual identities and lives beyond the relationship. ● express similar attitudes, beliefs, values, and interests. ● enhance each other’s self-worth and self-esteem. ● be open, genuine, and authentic with each other. ● remain loyal and faithful to each other. ● have substantial shared time together. ● reap rewards commensurate with their investments relative to the other party. ● experience a mysterious and inexplicable “magic” in each other’s presence. Communication Choice Point: Virtual Infidelity
Although in a monogamous relationship for the past 15 years, you have established romantic
relationships online and you suspect your partner has as well. Now, it’s causing you anxiety and
you want to come clean but not give up these online affairs. In your ideal world, what are some
of the rules you would like to see you and your partner establish for online relationships? Family Rules Family communication research also points to the importance of rules in defining and
maintaining the family (Galvin, Bylund, & Brommel, 2007). Like the rules of friends and lovers,
family rules tell you which behaviors will be rewarded (and therefore what you should do) and
which will be punished (what you should not do). Rules also provide a kind of structure that
defines the family as a cohesive unit and that distinguishes it from other similar families. Family
rules encompass three main interpersonal communication issues (Satir,
Page
1983):
Watch the Video “Please Don’t Lie to Me” at MyCommunicationLab ● What can you talk about? Can you talk about the family finances? Grandpa’s drinking?
Your sister’s lifestyle? ● How can you talk about something? Can you joke about your brother’s disability? Can
you address directly questions of family history and family skeletons? ● To whom can you talk? Can you talk openly to extended family members such as
cousins and aunts and uncles? Can you talk to close neighbors about family health issues? Workplace Rules
Rules also govern your workplace relationships. These rules are usually a part of the corporate
culture that an employee would learn from observing other employees (especially those who
move up the hierarchy) as well as from official memos on dress, sexual 151152harassment, and
the like. Of course, each organization will have different rules, so it’s important to see what rules
are operating in any given situation. These are among the rules that you might find: ● Work very hard. ● Be cooperative in teams; the good of the company comes first. Page ● Don’t reveal company policies and plans to workers at competing firms. ● Don’t form romantic relationships with other workers. ● Avoid even the hint of sexual harassment. For a discussion of politeness as a relationship theory, see “Politeness as an Interpersonal
Relationship Theory” at tcbdevito.blogspot.com. What role does politeness play in your own
relationships? SOCIAL EXCHANGE AND EQUITY THEORY
Social exchange theory claims that you develop relationships that will enable you to maximize
your profits (Thibaut & Kelley, 1986; Stafford, 2008)—a theory based on an economic model of
profits and losses. And, although the theory was formulated before social media, you’ll see that it
applies equally well to Facebook and Google+ relationships, for example. The theory begins
with a simple equation: Profits = Rewards – Costs. Rewards are anything that you would incur costs to obtain. Research has identified six types of rewards in a relationship: money, status,
love, information, goods, and services (Baron, Branscombe, & Byrne,
Page
2009). For example, to get the reward of money, you might have to work rather than play. To
earn (the status of) an A in an interpersonal communication course, you might have to write a
term paper or study more than you want to.
Costs are things that you normally try to avoid, that you consider unpleasant or difficult.
Examples might include working overtime, washing dishes and ironing clothes, watching your
partner’s favorite television show that you find boring, or doing favors for those you dislike. SKILL DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE: Analyzing
Interpersonal Relationships in the Media
Interpersonal relationships, as they’re expressed in the popular media, provide an interesting
perspective on the ways in which our culture views relationships and on the principles of
relationship communication it teaches. Think of all the media you’re exposed to throughout an
average day and consider the messages you are receiving about relationships. Look at the media
in any form—television (in dramas, sitcoms, commercials, talk shows, reality shows),
newspapers, magazines, blogs, websites, music, and film—and try to identify the values and
attitudes they communicate about interpersonal relationships. Think about these examples: ● Do the popular media approve of certain types of relationships and not others? ● How do the media “define” friendship, love, and family? ● What do the media say about the rules for relationships? ● How do the media deal with the dark side of interpersonal relationships, such as
relationship violence and spousal abuse? Becoming mindful of what the media teach and how they do it will help you to avoid
internalizing relationship values before examining them critically.
Page
Equity theory uses the ideas of social exchange but goes a step farther and claims that you
develop and maintain relationships in which the ratio of your rewards relative to your costs is
approximately equal to your partner’s (Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978; Messick & Cook,
1983; Stafford, 2008). For example, if you and a friend start a business and you put up two-thirds
of the money and your friend puts up one-third, equity would demand that you get two-thirds of
the profits and your friend get one-third. An equitable relationship, then, is simply one in which
each party derives rewards that are proportional to their costs. If you contribute more to the
relationship than your partner, then equity requires that you should get greater rewards. If you
both work equally hard, then equity demands that you 152153should get approximately equal
rewards. You also see the demand for equity in online relationships; if you indicate “like” or
“+1” to a friend’s photos or posts, you expect reciprocity; you expect equity. In fact social media
have rather strict, though unwritten, equity expectations.
Equity theory puts into clear focus the sources of relational dissatisfaction seen every day. For
example, in a relationship both partners may have full-time jobs, but one partner may also be
expected to do the major share of the household chores. Thus, although both may be deriving equal rewards—they have equally good cars, they live in the same three-bedroom house, and so
on—one partner is paying more of the costs. According to equity theory, this partner will be
dissatisfied. Communication Choice Point: Negotiating Equity
You feel your romantic relationship of the last three months has become inequitable—you seem
to do more of the work but get few benefits, while your partner does less work but gets more
benefits. You want to correct this imbalance before the relationship goes any further. What are
some options you have for negotiating greater equity? What are some of the things you might
say?
Equity theory claims that you will develop, maintain, and be satisfied with relationships that are
equitable. You will not develop, will be dissatisfied with, and will eventually terminate
relationships that are inequitable. The greater the inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and the
greater the likelihood that the relationship will end. Objectives Self-Check ● Can you explain the theories of interpersonal relationships (attraction, rules, and social
exchange and equity)? ● Can you apply the insights from these theories to your own relationships—to better
understand them and to improve them? Page Messages in the Media Wrap Up
Television dramas and sitcoms are perfect laboratories for studying communication patterns in
relationships of all kinds. Watching these shows with a view to the ways in which the characters
define themselves and communicate with each other will provide a useful follow-up to this
chapter. Summary of Concepts and Skills
Study and Review materials for this chapter are at MyCommunicationLab
Listen to the Audio Chapter Summary at MyCommunicationLab
This chapter explored interpersonal relationships—their stages and types; the reasons they are
formed; and the influence of culture, technology, and work on relationships. Advantages and Disadvantages of Interpersonal
Relationships 1. Among the advantages are that relationships lessen loneliness and raise self-esteem. 2. Among the disadvantages are that relationships put pressure on you to expose
weakness and increase your obligations. Coming down *Page 160*
CONFLICT IS INFLUENCED BY CULTURE AND
GENDER
As in other areas of interpersonal communication, it helps to consider conflict in light of the
influences of culture and gender. Both exert powerful influences on how people view and resolve
conflicts. Conflict and Culture
Culture influences both the issues that people fight about and the ways of dealing with conflict
that people consider appropriate and inappropriate. Cohabiting teens, for example, are more
likely to experience conflict with their parents about their living style if they live in the United
States than if they live in Sweden, where cohabitation is more accepted and more prevalent.
Similarly, male infidelity is more likely to cause conflict between U.S. spouses than in cultures in
which such behavior is more common. Students from the United States are more likely to engage
in conflict with another U.S. student than with someone from another culture; Chinese students,
on the other hand, are more likely to engage in a conflict with a non-Chinese student than with
another Chinese (Leung, 1988).
The types of interpersonal conflicts that tend to arise depend on the cultural orientation of the
individuals involved. For example, in collectivist cultures, (such as those of Ecuador, Indonesia,
and Korea), conflicts most often involve violations of larger group norms and values, such as
failing in your role, for example, as family provider or overstepping your social status by
publicly disagreeing with a superior. Conversely, in individualistic cultures (such as those of the
United States, Canada, and Western Europe), conflicts are more likely to occur when people
violate expected norms—for example, not defending a position in the face of disagreement
(Ting-Toomey, 1985). VIEWPOINTS: Conflict and Culture
What does your own culture teach about conflict and its management? For example: What
strategies does it prohibit? Are some strategies prohibited in conflicts with certain people (say,
your parents) but not in conflicts with others (say, your friends)? Does your culture prescribe
certain ways of dealing with conflict? Does it have different expectations for men and for
women? Do these teachings influence your actual conflict behaviors?
Page Conflict and Gender
Do men and women engage in interpersonal conflict differently? One of the few stereotypes that
are supported by research is that of the withdrawing and sometimes aggressive male. Men are more apt to withdraw from a conflict situation than are women. It has been argued that this may
happen because men become more psychologically and physiologically aroused during conflict
(and retain this heightened level of arousal much longer than do women) and so may try to
distance themselves and withdraw from the conflict to prevent further arousal. Another
explanation for the male tendency to withdraw is that the culture has taught men to avoid
conflict. Still another explanation is that withdrawal is an expression of power (Gottman &
Carrere, 1994; Canary, Cupach, & Messman, 1995; Goleman, 1995; Noller, 1993).
Women, on the other hand, want to get closer to the conflict; they want to talk about it and
resolve it. Even adolescents reveal these differences; in a study of boys and girls aged 11 to 17,
boys withdrew more than girls but were more aggressive when they didn’t withdraw
160161(Lindeman, Harakka, & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, 1997). Similarly, a study of offensive
language found that girls were more easily offended by language than boys, but boys were more
apt to fight when they were offended by the words used (Heasley, Babbitt, & Burbach, 1995a,
1995b). Another study showed that young girls used more prosocial strategies (i.e., behaviors
designed to help others rather than oneself) than boys (Rose & Asher, 1999).
It should be mentioned that some research fails to support these gender differences in conflict
style—the differences that cartoons, situation comedies, and films portray so readily and so
clearly. For example, several studies dealing with both college students and men and women in
business found no significant differences in the ways men and women engage in conflict
(Wilkins & Andersen, 1991; Canary & Hause, 1993; Gottman & Levenson, 1999). CONFLICT STYLES HAVE CONSEQUENCES
The way in which you engage in conflict has consequences for who wins and who loses, if and
when the conflict is resolved, and ultimately for the relationship as a whole. As you read through
these styles (Blake & Mouton, 1984), try to identify your own conflict style as well as the styles
of those with whom you have close relationships. A summary of these five styles appears in
Table 8.1.
Watch the Video “Time Troubles” at MyCommunicationLab Competing: I Win, You Lose
The competitive style involves great concern for your own needs and desires and little for those
of others. As long as your needs are met, you think the conflict has been dealt with successfully.
In conflict motivated by competitiveness, you’d be likely to be verbally aggressive and to blame
the other person.
Page
This style represents an “I win, you lose” philosophy. This is the conflict style of a person who
simply imposes his or her will on the other: “I make the money, and we’ll vacation at the beach
or not at all.” But this philosophy often leads to resentment on the part of the person who loses,
which can cause additional conflicts. Further, the fact that you win and the other person loses
probably means that the conflict hasn’t really been resolved but has only concluded (for now). Avoiding: I Lose, You Lose Conflict avoiders are relatively unconcerned with their own or with their opponents’ needs or
desires. They avoid any real communication about the problem, change topics when the problem
is brought up, and generally withdraw both psychologically and physically. TABLE 8.1 Five Conflict Styles and Their Consequences
Here are the five conflict styles and their likely consequences or outcomes (Blake & Mouton
(1984). Do you have a general conflict style or does your conflict style vary with your
relationship to the other person? For example, are you likely to engage in conflict differently
depending on the other person, whether friend, romantic partner, work colleague, and so on?
You Other Competing: great concern for your needs; little concern for
Win
other’s Lose Avoiding: little concern for your own or other’s needs Lose Lose Compromising: some concern for your own and other’s
needs Win and lose Win and lose Accommodating: great concern for other’s needs; little
concern for your own Lose Win Collaborating: great concern for your own and other’s
needs Win Win 161162
Page
As you can appreciate, the avoiding style does little to resolve any conflicts and may be viewed
as an “I lose, you lose” philosophy. If a couple can’t agree about where to spend their vacation,
but each person refuses to negotiate a resolution to the disagreement, the pair may not take any
vacation at all; both sides lose. Interpersonal problems rarely go away of their own accord;
rather, if they exist, they need to be faced and dealt with effectively. Avoidance merely allows the
conflict to fester and probably grow, only to resurface in another guise. Compromising: I Win and Lose, You Win and Lose
Compromise is the kind of strategy you might refer to as “meeting each other halfway,” “horse
trading,” or “give and take.” There’s some concern for your own needs and some concern for the
other’s needs. This strategy is likely to result in maintaining peace, but there will be a residue of
dissatisfaction over the inevitable losses that each side has to endure.
Compromise represents an “I win and lose, you win and lose” philosophy. So, if you and your
partner can’t vacation at both the beach and the mountains, then you might settle for weekend
trips or use the money to have a hot tub installed instead. These may not be your first choices,
but they’re not bad and may satisfy (to some degree at least) each of your vacation wants. Accommodating: I Lose, You Win When accommodation takes place, you sacrifice your own needs for the needs of the other
person(s). Your primary goal is to maintain harmony and peace in the relationship or group. This
style may help maintain peace and may satisfy the opposition, but it does little to meet your own
needs, which are unlikely to go away.
Accommodation represents an “I lose, you win” philosophy. If your partner wants to vacation in
the mountains and you want to vacation at the beach, and you, instead of negotiating an
agreement acceptable to both, give in and accommodate, then you lose and your partner wins.
Although this style may make your partner happy (at least on this occasion), it’s not likely to
provide a lasting resolution to an interpersonal conflict. You’ll eventually sense unfairness and
inequality and may easily come to resent your partner, and perhaps even yourself. Collaborating: I Win, You Win
In collaboration you address both your own and the other person’s needs. This style, often
considered the ideal, takes time and a willingness to communicate—especially to listen to the
perspectives and needs of the other person.
Collaboration enables each person’s needs to be met, an “I win, you win” situation. For example,
you might both agree to split the vacation—one week in the mountains and one week at the
beach. Or you might agree to spend this year’s vacation at the beach and next year’s in the
mountains. This is obviously the style that, in an ideal world, most people would choose for
interpersonal conflict. SKILL DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE: Generating Win–
Win Solutions
For any one of the situations listed, (a) generate as many win-lose solutions as you can—
solutions in which one person wins and the other loses; (b) generate as many possible win-win
solutions as you feel the individuals involved in the conflict could reasonably accept; and (c)
explain in one sentence the difference between win-lose and win-win solutions
Page