Interpersonal Conflict in Television or Film

froggermom02

09CH_Bevan_Interpersonal.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Interpersonal Conflict in Television or Film

9Challenges of Interpersonal Relationships

moodboard/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes

After reading this chapter, you should be able to

ሁ Explain the “dark side” of communication and communication’s role in both helping and hindering relationships.

ሁ Understand interpersonal conflict, conflict avoidance, and how conflict is resolved and managed. ሁ Compare and contrast the different types of jealousy, deception, and abuse most frequently encoun-

tered in interpersonal relationships. ሁ Apply strategies for competent communication during relationship challenges.

The “Dark Side” of Interpersonal Communication 9.1

Introduction Suppose you have been assigned a class project that requires you to perform some compli- cated statistical calculations and write a paper. You are confident in your ability to write the paper; however, your statistical skills are poor. You ask your sister for help with the statistics part of the project during the coming week. In return, you offer to let her borrow your car for the week. Your sister agrees to the arrangement, so you give her your car keys. During the week, you ask your sister to help you two times; each time she tells you she is too busy at the moment. Tomorrow is the deadline for the project, and your sister says she does not have time today to help you with it. The two of you begin to argue, and you accuse her of tak- ing advantage of you by using your car all week and not helping you as she promised. You ask that she return your keys immediately. Your sister becomes upset, claiming that she wanted to help you but that you just kept asking for help at inconvenient times.

Every relationship faces difficulties in the form of conflict, jealousy, deception, or even aggres- sion or abuse. But how the relational partners communicate in the face of these challenges can be what ultimately makes or breaks the relationship. If the partners can talk through the experience and understand each other’s perspective, they can likely manage the challenge successfully and return to relationship maintenance, as we discussed in Chapter 8. However, if the partners ignore the issue or only deal with it by yelling and being angry at each other, it may be an issue that the relationship cannot overcome.

Being able to understand and navigate relationship difficulties is instrumental for the suc- cessful continuation of any close relationship, and it is thus the focus of this chapter. In par- ticular, in this chapter we explore challenges and discord that can arise in different types of interpersonal relationships. The discussions address the “dark side” of interpersonal com- munication and how communication can both contribute to and assist in tackling the chal- lenges that relational partners face. We discuss the challenges of conflict, jealousy, lying, and deception, as well as verbal and online abuse, and we conclude the chapter with strategies for competent communication that can be of use when challenges arise in relationships.

9.1 The “Dark Side” of Interpersonal Communication The phrase “dark side” was in large part popularized when the original Star Wars movie was released in 1977. In the film, Darth Vader tries to entice Luke Skywalker to join the “dark side”—to let his evil side take over. The phrase now has an iconic role in American popular culture, and it generally refers to an evil, malevolent component of something.

The phrase “dark side” is also used in reference to how we behave in our interpersonal rela- tionships. In The Dark Side of Interpersonal Communication (1994), interpersonal communi- cation researchers William Cupach and Brian Spitzberg focused on the malevolent forces that influence interactions and relationships. They initially defined the dark side of interper- sonal communication as interactions that are challenging, difficult, distressing, and prob- lematic (Cupach & Spitzberg, 1994). Some years later, they refined the definition of dark side messages to those that involve “dysfunctional, distorted, distressing, and destructive aspects of human action” (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1998, p. xiv).

Section 9.1The “Dark Side” of Interpersonal Communication

Cupach and Spitzberg (1994) decided to study the dark side of communication to bal- ance the scholarly understanding of how we positively relate to each other—through self- disclosure and by showing love, cooperation, and empathy—with the negative, destructive aspects of relationships. Such a balance between bright and dark allows for a more compre- hensive consideration of how relationships—and the communication that sustains them— truly function. Research on conflict, jealousy, deception, stalking, hurt, anger, infidelity, and verbal and physical abuse grew exponentially after Spitzberg and Cupach’s initial studies, and with this research, our understanding of the dark side of communication developed as well.

Before we explore common challenges faced by relational partners, it is impor- tant to point out that no message is purely dark, just as no message is entirely bright. There can be negative aspects to messages that we generally view as positive and vice versa. For example, being entirely hon- est and open with your partner could hurt his or her feelings. In addition, relying on humor and jokes, especially ones that are sarcastic or pointed, can prevent your part- ner from truly knowing who you are. Like- wise, extending social support to another can make things worse if the person in need does not view it as being helpful.

In the same way, dark messages can some- times be useful or valuable. Being jealous and expressing that jealousy is often viewed as a sign of weakness, but it can also be a signal to your partner that you care or find him or her appealing and attractive. A relationship in which interpersonal conflict is entirely absent may seem calm on the surface, but troublesome issues that are not being addressed likely lie beneath the surface. Expressing anger, if done in a manner that does not hurt anyone psycho- logically or physically, can help partners realize that the issue is an important one and that frustration has risen to a level that is no longer sustainable. Although communication can be dark, it can also be an essential way to confront relationship difficulties and challenges. The context, situation, and nature of the relationship determine whether messages are viewed as helpful or harmful.

But what is the impact of the dark side of interpersonal communication? Research has shown, time and again, that the more often romantic couples interpersonally grapple with dark issues such as conflict, jealousy, infidelity, and abuse, the lower their satisfaction with the relation- ship. In fact, engaging in negative marital interactions was a stronger predictor of relationship dissatisfaction than being positive toward each other (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989). Based on this and other findings, psychologist and relationship researcher John Gottman (1994b) pro- posed that the ratio of positive to negative interactions in a romantic relationship should be 5 to 1 for that relationship to succeed. This 5 to 1 positive to negative message ratio is evidence of how important dark side messages can be in close relationships.

Hemera Technologies/AbleStock.com/Thinkstock ሁ Some dark messages are not wholly

destructive and can sometimes be useful or valuable. Anger, if expressed in a manner that isn’t harmful, can help partners confront and work through relationship challenges.

Section 9.2Relationship Challenges

9.2 Relationship Challenges When you first form a relationship with another person, whether it is romantic or nonroman- tic, the relationship tends to be harmonious. When a relationship is in its infancy, both people are usually cautious about what they tell each other and how they say things, and they make a conscious effort to present positive information about themselves and to avoid conflict. Researchers have found that one of the reasons new relationships are usually so pleasant is that, at this stage, people emphasize the similarities they have and downplay their differences (Brown & Rogers, 1991).

However, as a relationship progresses, differences between people emerge. We learn about and further explore these differences—both big and small—through our interpersonal com- munication. We might handle a small difference, such as squeezing the toothpaste from the middle or the bottom of the tube, by making a lighthearted joke in a way that informs our partner that this is an issue, but one that is easily resolvable. In contrast, a larger difference, such as how we handle money or how to depict our relationship to others on social media, might be harder to communicate interpersonally. These larger differences may result in com- municative challenges such as interpersonal conflict, expressing jealousy, being deceptive, or engaging in verbal or online abuse. The following sections focus on four of the most prevalent and frequently problematic relationship challenges that individuals encounter: (1) interper- sonal conflict and conflict avoidance, (2) jealousy, (3) deception, and (4) verbal and online abuse.

Interpersonal Conflict and Conflict Avoidance Probably the most frequent relationship challenges that people face are conflicts in their per- sonal and professional life. Interpersonal communication conflict researchers William Wilmot and Joyce Hocker (2013) note that the following must be present for a conflict to exist:

1. There is an expressed struggle, meaning that one or both parties must communicate about the conflict in some verbal or nonverbal manner.

2. There are at least two interdependent parties; the individuals involved need one another in some way, and their choices affect one another.

3. The perception of these parties is that (a) they have incompatible goals, where they both want different things or even want the same thing, such as a promotion, but cannot both have it; (b) they have scarce resources, such that there is not enough of something—money, time, or even love—to go around; and (c) they have interfer- ence—often involving communication—from others in achieving their goals, which means that the other party is perceived to get in the way of how an individual wants to act or what that individual seeks to have.

Let’s look at the separate components of this definition in relation to the situation presented at the beginning of the chapter:

• You and your sister openly and directly communicate your feelings and frustrations to each other about this conflict.

• You and your sister depend on and need something from each other. • You and your sister possess different goals (you want your sister’s help in exchange

for lending her your car, but she has been unwilling or unable to assist you). • There is not enough time or access to the car that can be divided up between you

and your sister.

Section 9.2Relationship Challenges

• You each view the other as getting in the way of what you each ultimately want.

Conflicts such as this can worsen over time, potentially even permanently damaging a rela- tionship if they are not successfully managed or resolved. Interpersonal conflict can end mar- riages, separate friends, break up families, and increase job dissatisfaction and turnover. It can also be painful and damaging to other people who are not directly involved in the conflict. If the conflict occurs in a family, for example, it can negatively affect children and other family members as well as the partners involved in the conflict. In fact, children can also learn their parents’ conflict patterns and go on to use them in their own romantic relationships later in life (Koerner, 2014). Your ability to competently manage and resolve conflict can thus help you face this relationship challenge and preserve your important relationships.

Conflict Styles One important thing to understand about conflict is the communication style individuals use in conflicts. Management professor M. Afzalur Rahim (1983) identified five basic conflict styles—or patterned behavioral responses—that individuals tend to use across different conflicts and with different people. Though Rahim developed his conflict style typology for the organizational context, it is now also used by scholars interested in conflicts in close rela- tionships. These five styles are composed of various combinations of two related dimensions: (1) how concerned you are about yourself and what you seek to get out of the conflict and (2) how concerned you are about the other person and assisting the other in getting what he or she wants. Figure 9.1 describes how these two dimensions combine to create each conflict style. Let’s look at each of these styles a bit more closely.

Figure 9.1: Conflict styles organized by dimension ሁ Each of the five conflict styles considers the individual’s degree of concern for self versus his or her degree of concern for the other person.

Source: Adapted from Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 368–376.

Low concern for others

Low concern for self

High concern for self

HIgh concern for others

Avoidance Accommodation

Competition

Compromise

Collaboration

Section 9.2Relationship Challenges

The avoidance conflict style occurs when there is a low concern for yourself and a low con- cern for the other person. When our style is to avoid conflict, we believe that if we just ignore an issue, it will go away. If your sister prefers the avoidance style during the conflict example we introduced at the beginning of the chapter, she would likely communicate by being eva- sive, denying that the conflict exists, changing the topic, using humor to deflect the conflict, or physically or emotionally withdrawing from interacting with you (e.g., avoiding eye contact). Withdrawal, by itself, is not always negative; sometimes it is good to get away from the other person to get your emotions under control or to think about the issue before you discuss it. However, researchers found that in failing marriages, negative emotions overwhelm the spouses’ interactions, and the spouses each withdraw as a result (Zautra, 2003). The goal should not be to always avoid conflict, but to strategically use the avoidance style to manage conflict in a useful way.

In the accommodation conflict style, there is a low concern for yourself but a high concern for the other person. In other words, you are more interested in giving in to what the other person wants than you are about accomplishing your own goals. An accommodating person tends to give in to the demands of other people and accepts being “put upon” by others. If you used this conflict style with your sister, you might communicate by speaking softly with a low volume and soft pitch and be reluctant to express your opinion. You may also look down and avoid eye contact. Those with an accommodating conflict style have a body posture that is often closed, with their arms drawn inward, and they rarely use gestures to punctuate their speech (Hartley, 1999).

The competition conflict style involves a high concern for yourself and a low concern for the other person. This style is evident when an individual engages in aggressive or competitive behavior by being critical, having a win–lose orientation, or engaging in direct confrontation. Imagine both you and your sister are competitive in your conflict. You may communicate by speaking at a high or low pitch and in a demanding tone of voice. Your sister may be forceful in her communication and may try to intimidate you (Arredondo, 2000). The goal is winning, and you each may interrupt, use a loud volume when talking, stare down one another, or even be abusive in your communication. Those who use the competition conflict style run the risk of inviting an even more aggressive response to their statements, which can result in escalat- ing conflicts (Hartley, 1999).

In the compromise conflict style, there is a moderate concern both for yourself and for the other person. The individuals in the conflict work together to create a fair solution that is acceptable for both of them, but that also means that no one gets entirely what he or she wants. After you and your sister both cool down, you might try to compromise by negotiating back and forth, suggesting trade-offs, and prioritizing what one wants the most versus what is more easily given up. This may mean that your sister drops everything to help you complete your assignment on time and that you will not ask her to wash your car or refill it with gas. In formal conflict mediation situations, many agreements are compromises—both parties for- mally agree to give up something in exchange for something else. These are often finalized with formal handshakes.

When you have a high concern for yourself and a high concern for the other person, you will most likely use the collaboration conflict style. People using this style attempt to create a win–win situation for both people—one where both feel satisfied and support the decision or solution they have reached. As opposed to the compromise strategy, where both parties

Section 9.2Relationship Challenges

have some gains and some losses, collaboration involves both parties achieving all that they originally sought and being satisfied with the outcome. Because both parties must be satis- fied in this conflict style, it is the most challenging and demanding style. Collaborative people will be supportive about what the other person says and may nonverbally communicate their openness by nodding, making eye contact, facing the other person, and shifting their body posture so that it is open (e.g., not sitting with their arms crossed). To collaborate in our conflict example, you and your sister might make statements that disclose and describe your thoughts and feelings and seek information from each other to get the “full picture” of what the other feels and thinks in order to move forward.

Your dominant culture can influence the conflict style you are most comfortable using. Much of this research has focused on Hofstede’s individualism–collectivism cultural membership dimension in relation to conflict style usage of American versus non-American cultures (Orbe, Everett, & Putman, 2014). Based on the broad characterization that European American indi- viduals tend to be individualistic, whereas members of Latino, Asian, and African American cultures tend to be more collectivistic, European Americans tend to prefer direct, solution- oriented cultural conflict styles such as compromise and collaboration (Orbe et al., 2014). Asian cultural members tend to prefer both accommodation and avoidance, while Latino indi- viduals tend to rely more on the avoidance style; however, both are likely to show consider- ation of their partners’ feelings and to be tactful. African American individuals tend to prefer emotional expressiveness and involvement in conflict (Orbe et al., 2014).

Biological sex can be an informative cultural element here as well: African American females tend to prefer direct conflict approaches in an organizational context, whereas European American females tend to be more avoidant and anxious about direct confrontation (Shuter & Turner, 1997). As is always the case with communication patterns, one’s individual approaches and preferences interact with cultural norms to determine one’s conflict style. Also note that these cultural difference findings should not be generalized as stereotypes; approach all con- flicts with an open mind.

Overall, these conflict styles are fairly enduring patterns that individuals tend to prefer using in conflicts. However, interacting with a particular person, topic, or situation could mean that you use a different style. Because conflict involves two individuals interacting, the other party in the conflict can affect which conflict style you use. For example, if you usually prefer to compromise or collaborate, but your sister is always extremely competitive, you may choose to use the avoidance style with her because her style preference offers little opportunity to accomplish anything productive when you are in conflict with her. The Self-Test feature will allow you to determine your preferred conflict style or styles.

Self-Test: Ident if y Your Conf lic t St yles This self-assessment is designed to help you identify your preferred conf lict management style. Read each of the statements below and circle the response that you believe best ref lects your position regarding each statement. Then use the scoring key to calculate your results for each conf lict management style.

(continued on next page)

Section 9.2Relationship Challenges

Self-Test: Ident if y Your Conf lic t St yles (cont inued) This self-assessment is designed to help you identify your preferred conf lict management style. Read each of the statements below and circle the response that you believe best ref lects your position regarding each statement. Then use the scoring key to calculate your results for each conf lict management style.

When I have a conflict, I do the following:

Not at all

Very much

1. I give in to the wishes of the other party. 1 2 3 4 5

2. I try to realize a middle-of-the-road solution.

1 2 3 4 5

3. I push my own point of view. 1 2 3 4 5

4. I examine issues until I find a solution that really satisfies me and the other party.

1 2 3 4 5

5. I avoid confrontation about our differences.

1 2 3 4 5

6. I concur with the other party. 1 2 3 4 5

7. I emphasize that we have to find a com- promise solution.

1 2 3 4 5

8. I search for gains. 1 2 3 4 5

9. I stand for my own and others’ goals and interests.

1 2 3 4 5

10. I avoid differences of opinion as much as possible.

1 2 3 4 5

11. I try to accommodate the other party. 1 2 3 4 5

12. I insist we both give in a little. 1 2 3 4 5

13. I fight for a good outcome for myself. 1 2 3 4 5

14. I examine ideas from both sides to find a mutually optimal solution.

1 2 3 4 5

15. I try to make differences less severe. 1 2 3 4 5

16. I adapt to the other party’s goals and interests.

1 2 3 4 5

17. I strive whenever possible towards 50-50 compromise.

1 2 3 4 5

18. I do everything to win. 1 2 3 4 5

19. I work out a solution that serves my own as well as others’ interests as much as possible.

1 2 3 4 5

20. I try to avoid a confrontation with the other.

1 2 3 4 5

(continued on next page)

Section 9.2Relationship Challenges

Resolution Versus Management of Conflict We often focus on what the outcome of a conflict will (or should) be, rather than on the pro- cess of engaging in the conflict from beginning to end. This focus on conflict outcomes also

Self-Test: Ident if y Your Conf lic t St yles (cont inued) Scoring

Write the number circled for each item on the appropriate line below (statement number is under the line), and add up each subscale.

Dimension Calculation Your score

Accommodating (yielding) ____________ + ____________ + ____ + ____________ = Item 1 Item 6 Item 11 Item 16

Compromising ____________ + ____________ + ____ + ____________ = Item 2 Item 7 Item 12 Item 17

Competing (forcing) ____________ + ____________ + ____ + ____________ = Item 3 Item 8 Item 13 Item 18

Collaborating (problem solving)

____________ + ____________ + ____ + ____________ = Item 4 Item 9 Item 14 Item 19

Avoiding ____________ + ____________ + ____ + ____________ = Item 5 Item 10 Item 15 Item 20

Source: Self-test from de Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., Beersma, B., Kluwer, E. S., & Nauta, A. (2001). A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 645–668. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Consider Your Results

The higher your score, the more likely you are to use that particular conf lict style. You might have scored highest on more than one style. If so, this means that you tend to use both styles when in conf lict. Ask your close relationship partners to take this self-test and then compare your responses. Seeing how your conf lict styles mesh with or are different from your relationship partner’s can give you both insight into how you can more compe- tently face the relationship challenge of conf lict. Now consider the following questions.

1. Compare your conf lict style with the conf lict style of your closest friend or relation- ship partner. Do you tend to avoid conf lict while the other person is more competi- tive? Are you, for example, an accommodator and the other person a compromiser?

2. Now compare and contrast your role in these different relationships. Do you tend to use different conf lict styles with your friend than you do with your relationship part- ner? What about with a coworker?

3. Were you surprised by your dominant conf lict style (or styles)? What information from this chapter could assist you in engaging in conf lict more competently?

Section 9.2Relationship Challenges

means that we emphasize the importance of conflict resolution. Three conditions must exist for a conflict to be resolved:

• The parties in the conflict decide to end the conflict. • The parties are both satisfied with the outcome of the conflict. • The parties do not engage in or deal with the conflict again.

How many conflicts can you think of where all three conditions were met? It is unlikely that you have had many conflicts that have truly been resolved. Resolution is especially hard to accomplish when the conflict is about an important or complicated issue, such as where a couple will move, or when the issue is sensitive, such as when adult siblings are deciding where their elderly parents should live. Although resolution is a worthy goal, it may not be the most common outcome.

Instead of resolution, most conflicts are dealt with via conflict management, which means that the parties have dealt with the conflict for the time being, but one or both individuals remains dissatisfied. Samuel Vuchinich (1990) found that 66% of family conflicts that occurred at the dinner table ended when the parties agreed to disagree, and 2% ended when one party left the table or refused to continue the conflict. In a different study of workplace conflict, 79% of participants reported that their conflicts ended without resolution (Gayle & Preiss, 1998). And in romantic relationships, the couples’ relationship satisfaction decreased as more con- flicts went unresolved (Cramer, 2002).

When an issue is managed rather than resolved, there is a much greater chance that it will reemerge later and that the parties will have continued conflict about it. This is referred to as a serial argument, where a conflict about a topic or issue recurs over time and without reso- lution (Johnson & Roloff, 1998). Having a serial argument with a romantic partner can be a stressful experience (Reznik, Roloff, & Miller, 2012) and can harm the relationship (Johnson & Roloff, 1998). Although management is the most likely conflict outcome, it can be problematic when conflicts become serial arguments. This may be why romantic partners in serial argu- ments were more likely to use collaborative communication and less likely to use avoidant or competitive communication compared to romantic partners in nonserial arguments (Bevan, Hefner, & Love, 2014). Serial arguers may communicate more constructively because they are making conscious attempts to reach a resolution.

Overall, conflict can be destructive because it has a tendency to grow and worsen, particularly when it goes unresolved. But it is also important to remember that conflict can have impor- tant, and even desirable, benefits that can strengthen a relationship. For example, in their studies of marriage interaction, Patricia Noller and Judith Feeney (2002) reported that some conflict may actually be good for a marriage over time and can lead to the personal growth of both parties—as long as negative communication is aimed at the other person’s specific behavior and not at the whole person. For example, stating to your spouse “I’m upset because you did not take out the trash” should not be threatening to the other person’s self-image, self-esteem, or to the relationship. In contrast, stating “Not taking out the trash is just one more indication of your general laziness” is likely to be harmful. The second statement is a form of criticism that John Gottman (1994a), a prominent relationship researcher, cautions can be damaging to the relationship because it is a broad generalization that threatens your spouse’s self-esteem. (See the Everyday Communication Challenges feature to read more about Gottman’s research.) Thus, although conflict is a common dark side of interpersonal commu- nication, it is not entirely negative.

Ever yday Communic at ion Challenges: Grappling w it h t he Four Horsemen of t he Apoc aly pse Psychology professor John Gottman is currently one of the most inf luential researchers in the study of marital conf lict. His studies, which involve long-term, in-depth observations of how spouses engage in conf lict with each other, have spanned decades. From these data, Gottman (1994a) created what he calls “the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,” which are four specific behaviors that, when spouses consistently use them in their conf licts with each other, are particularly damaging to the quality of a marriage. In fact, according to Gottman’s (1994a) findings, the more that spouses use these messages in conf lict, the more likely they are to get divorced. These four behaviors discussed in Gottman’s (1994a) research are as follows:

• Criticizing: Attacking your partner’s personality or character rather than pointing out a specific behavior that you do not like. The intent of criticism is to always be right and for your partner to always be wrong. Criticizing statements usually start with “You always . . . ,” “You never . . . ,” and “Why are you so . . . .”

• Contempt: Attacking your partner’s sense of self in order to feel superior or better than your partner. Contempt can actually be viewed as a mild form of psychological abuse. Examples of contempt include insults, calling your partner names, consistently being sarcastic, and sneering. One way to communicate contempt—eye rolling—is particularly hurtful to your partner because it shows blatant disregard for what he or she is saying.

• Defensiveness: Depicting or seeing yourself as a victim. Being defensive involves warding off a perceived attack from your partner and is thus a very self-focused, selfish way to communicate. Examples of defensive messages are making excuses, whining, and saying “Yes, but . . . .”

• Stonewalling: Withdrawing so that you can avoid conf lict. Often stonewalling is intended to be a neutral message, such as when you want to take a little while to cool down or think about the situation, but your partner may perceive stonewalling as a sign of disap- proval, disconnection, or distancing. Examples of stonewalling include being silent or giving the silent treatment, responding with monosyllables or grunts, and physically leaving.

Many of us use these messages without knowing the potential damage they could cause to our partners and our relationships. These actions, though small, cause a great amount of pain and resentment and can build up over time. Try to be conscious of your use of these behaviors with those you care about. If you find that you do use them in conf lict, try to stop. Better yet, discuss these actions with those with whom you have conf lict and mutu- ally agree to try to not use them in conf lict situations.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Do you use any of these messages in your conf licts with your spouse or romantic partner? Do you use these messages in other relationships?

2. What alternative messages can you use in your conf licts with those to whom you are close? How can you strive to enact these alternative messages when engaged in conf lict?

3. Which of these four messages do you believe are most damaging to close relation- ships? Why

Section 9.2Relationship Challenges

means that we emphasize the importance of conflict resolution. Three conditions must exist for a conflict to be resolved:

• The parties in the conflict decide to end the conflict. • The parties are both satisfied with the outcome of the conflict. • The parties do not engage in or deal with the conflict again.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Do you use any of these messages in your conf licts with your spouse or romantic partner? Do you use these messages in other relationships?

2. What alternative messages can you use in your conf licts with those to whom you are close? How can you strive to enact these alternative messages when engaged in conf lict?

3. Which of these four messages do you believe are most damaging to close relation- ships? Why

Section 9.2Relationship Challenges

Jealousy When was the last time you were jealous? Did you see your romantic partner flirting with someone else? Did you notice that your friends seemed to be spending time together without you? Either of these situations can incite jealousy, which encompasses cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses associated with an individual’s need to protect a relationship that is threatened by a third party (Bevan, 2013). In important interpersonal relationships, you expe- rience jealousy when you believe that someone else—called a rival by jealousy researchers —enters the picture, potentially disrupting the partnership that you value.

Jealousy has been observed in many different types of relationships. Many scholars believe that everyone experiences jealousy and that it is an interpersonal experience that spans cultures and societies (White & Mullen, 1989). We may initially associate jealousy with our romantic relationships—and romantic jealousy is indeed the most prevalent and intense jeal- ousy that individuals can experience—but we can also experience and communicate jealousy in close friend, family, and organizational relationships. Jealousy can even be experienced and communicated in online settings. In essence, any relationship that is important to us, and that we wish to preserve, can create feelings of jealousy.

Though jealousy is fairly ubiquitous and has the generally innocuous goal of relationship preservation, the experience of jealousy and its expression can also have a dark side. For example, jealousy is a frequent source of conflict in romantic relationships (Strachan & Dut- ton, 1992). As the major relationship problem in 10% to 13% of marriages, jealousy is also the fourth most common contributor to divorce in the United States (Amato & Booth, 2001; Amato & Rogers, 1997). Further, marital and family therapists report that jealousy is a minor issue for two-thirds of their clients and a major issue for another one-quarter of their clients (White, 2008).

It is clear from these statistics that understanding how to better manage the experience and expression of jealousy is important for mitigating the potential damage of this relationship challenge. The following sections discuss how we experience and express jealousy.

Experiencing Jealousy Think again about a time when you felt jealous. How did you feel physically and emotionally? What thoughts preoccupied you? It is likely that you recall a mostly unpleasant experience. Perhaps your heart started beating fast or your stomach hurt. Maybe your thoughts and wor- ries consumed a great deal of your focus. These reactions to jealousy are part of the jealousy experience, which is the combination of emotional and cognitive responses to jealousy. The experience of jealousy is internal, which means that others may not know you are jealous because you do not show any obvious outward signs. Furthermore, the experience of jealousy can be further separated into emotional and cognitive jealousy.

Emotional jealousy is a blend of feelings related to jealousy, including feeling upset, frus- trated, sad, angry, hostile, irritated, disgusted, guilty, envious, fearful, or insecure. Of these, anger, which is a broad emotion that also includes hostility and irritation, is most closely asso- ciated with the jealousy experience (Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, & O’Connor, 1987). Though most of these emotions are negative, the jealousy experience can also include positive emo- tions such as love and passion (White & Mullen, 1989). Indeed, emotional jealousy is associ- ated with experiencing greater love for a romantic partner (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). Overall,

Section 9.2Relationship Challenges

emotional jealousy includes more than one feeling, and it is this aspect that differentiates emotional jealousy from cognitive jealousy.

Cognitive jealousy identifies thoughts experienced during the jealousy situation. For exam- ple, you might be worried that you will lose your friend or romantic partner to a rival. You might also be suspicious about the rival relationship. Though cognitive jealousy can allow a jealous person to step back and thoughtfully appraise the situation, research has found that cognitive jealousy is a more negative experience than emotional jealousy, especially when jealous thoughts spin out of control. For example, research shows positive links between emotional jealousy and love, but the more cognitive jealousy a person experienced, the less love they felt toward their romantic partner (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989).

Expressing Jealousy As we noted, the jealousy experience primarily involves your internal thoughts and feelings. Your jealousy only becomes external when you behave jealously, when you communicate your jealousy to another person, or even when you act out your jealousy when you are alone. Jealousy expression refers to the messages that result from the jealousy experience (Bevan, 2013). There are many different forms of jealousy expression. Think once again about the last time that you were jealous. How did you express or communicate your jealousy? Did you discuss it with your partner or confront the rival? Did you try to hide your jealousy from your partner? Did you privately cry or throw something at the wall? These examples illus- trate the range of messages and behaviors associated with jealousy expression. Communica- tion researcher Laura Guerrero has developed a list of 11 specific ways that jealousy can be expressed (Guerrero, Hannawa, & Babin, 2011). This list, presented in Table 9.1, illustrates the complexity of how we communicate our jealousy.

Table 9.1: The 11 forms of jealousy expression Jealousy expression Definition Examples

Integrative communication

Direct and constructive messages Discussing, explaining, sharing jealous feelings

Compensatory restoration

Behaviors to make an individual more attractive or appealing to the partner

Increasing affection, spending more time with the partner

Negative communication

Direct and indirect aggressive messages

Acting rudely, yelling, making mean comments

Violent communication

Threats or actual harm to the partner Being physically violent, throwing or hitting objects

Counterjealousy Actions taken to prompt the partner’s jealousy and threaten the relation- ship’s exclusivity

Flirting with someone else in front of the partner

Rival contact Direct interaction with the rival about the partner

Confronting or talking to the rival

Derogating the rival Negative comments about the rival Calling the rival names, telling the partner that the rival is no good

Surveillance Actions taken to monitor the partner Checking up on the partner, looking through the partner’s belongings

(continued on next page)

Section 9.2Relationship Challenges

Table 9.1: The 11 forms of jealousy expression (continued) Jealousy expression Definition Examples

Signs of possession Public gestures to confirm that the partner is taken

Showing the partner affection when around a rival

Silence Decision to not mention the jealousy Becoming silent, no longer talking

Denials Decision to ignore the jealousy Pretending that nothing is wrong, denying feelings of jealousy

Source: Adapted from Guerrero, L. K., Hannawa, A. F., & Babin, E. A. (2011). The Communicative Responses to Jealousy Scale: Revision, empirical validation, and associations with relational satisfaction. Communication Methods and Measures, 5, 223–249. Published by Taylor & Francis. Copyright © 2011 Routledge.

How can we communicate our jealousy in a way that helps us achieve the outcomes we desire? Generally, it is a good idea to express jealousy by way of integrative communication because it allows you to directly express jealousy in a positive, nonaccusatory way. Integra- tive jealousy expression is associated with increased relationship satisfaction in a number of research studies (Bevan, 2008), which is evidence that expressing jealousy in this way can be beneficial to relationships. In contrast, using negative or violent communication to express jealousy can threaten the stability of the relationship and, more significantly, can physically or psychologically hurt the partner.

Online Jealousy and Surveillance Across ages and cultural groups, jealousy is a consistent social media stressor (Bevan, 2017). For example, information communi- cated and accessed through Facebook often incites jealousy because the site “provides people with a visible interpersonal forum in which the information shared between Facebook friends can be ambiguous and perceived by a relationship partner as threatening” (Elphinston & Noller, 2011, p. 632). Based on an analysis of research about jealousy expressed and experienced online, Bevan (2013) identifies three unique social media characteristics that make such sites an ideal environment for jealousy to be communicated and experienced:

• There is a centralized, public (at least to one’s approved list of other users), and permanent place for observing how a partner interacts with others.

• Information that is posted or included by or about a partner could easily be misin- terpreted because there is a lack of context and a high amount of ambiguity, poten- tially creating miscommunication.

• It is easy and convenient to be friends with or somehow linked to individuals, such as former romantic partners, who could be rivals or incite jealousy in others. For example, 75% of social networking users in one study said they were likely to send a

Peter Cade/The Image Bank/Getty Images ሁ Jealously can also be expressed and

experienced through online interpersonal surveillance. Engaging in this type of behavior has been linked to increased jealousy and decreased satisfaction in relationships.

Section 9.2Relationship Challenges

Facebook friend request to a former romantic or sexual partner (Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009).

How do we become jealous and express jealousy online? If you have ever searched through an ex’s online profile for information about their romantic life, more vigilantly monitored a romantic partner’s profile page while they were out of town, or started tagging your part- ner in more of your social media posts to reinforce your connection with them, then you are engaging in one or more forms of online surveillance by showing your partner and others that you are in a relationship. Online interpersonal surveillance is a form of technologically- mediated communication that emphasizes the use of communication technologies to learn more about another person’s online and off-line activities (Tokunaga, 2011). Online surveil- lance is a message that is now so prevalent, low stakes (due to geographic distance and the reduced likelihood of being caught), and acceptable (particularly in comparison to off-line surveillance) that it is colloquially known as “creeping” or “Facebook stalking” (Walker, 2019). Research has found that the more people engage in surveillance online and the more time they spend on Facebook, the more jealous they are and the less satisfied they are with their relationships (Elphinston & Noller, 2011; Tokunaga, 2016). Users who are younger (Toku- naga, 2011) and are in less committed relationships (Marshall, Bejanyan, Di Castro, & Lee, 2013) also are more likely to monitor their partners’ online activities.

Deception A third challenge that relationship partners regularly face is deception. We engage in deception when we intentionally encode messages that encourage information or beliefs that are contrary to the truth (Burgoon, Guerrero, & Manusov, 2011). Note the inclusion of inten- tionally in this definition. Only messages that we strategically or purposefully intend to be untruthful can be considered deceptive. We are not deceptive when we accidentally provide incorrect information or when we genuinely do not know information. Based on this defini- tion, then, being deceptive runs counter to the first principle of being a competent communi- cator discussed in Chapter 1—take responsibility for your communication behavior—because this principle prescribes that we be truthful and accurate when communicating with others.

There are two main motivations or reasons to be deceptive (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998). Self- centered deception involves lies that are told to protect the liar, either to preserve privacy, save image or face, or simply for the liar’s gain. In contrast, other-centered deception assists or benefits another person, which can include protecting someone’s feelings or their self- image or trying to keep someone from worrying or getting upset. Other-centered deception is also called altruistic deception because the goal of assisting someone else is often construc- tive. For example, telling your spouse that you were studying rather than catching up on a television show that you enjoy is self-centered if it keeps your spouse from getting upset with you, but it is other-centered if your grades are fine and it prevents your spouse from worrying about how you are spending your free time. Considering these contrasting motiva- tions, do these two lies reflect the same level of communication competency on the part of the deceiver? Or does one lie make them more or less competent than the other?

Deception is an example of dark side communication because it clearly runs counter to many of the standards that we hold for our interpersonal relationships, including intimacy, trust, closeness, and security (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998). Indeed, in a landmark research study by psychologists Bella DePaulo and Deborah Kashy (1998), it was found that we are less likely to lie to our close relationship partners than we are to acquaintances or strangers. In addition,

Section 9.2Relationship Challenges

we are more likely to engage in other-centered, rather than self-centered, deceptions with those we are close to in order to spare their feelings, to protect them from hurt, and to convey that we care about them (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998).

Prevalence of Deception In the United States, our cultural belief tends to be that honesty is the best policy, but the reality is that individuals can be deceptive more often than we think. It is important to under- stand different factors and their relationships to deception prevalence. Consider the follow- ing questions:

• Who is being lied to? • Does the liar have a general proclivity to lie? • What is the liar’s age?

We cannot make blanket statements or generalizations about how much people lie. Instead, we have to consider who is lying, and to whom. To whom we lie is the first factor to consider. As we discussed, we tend to be less likely to deceive those with whom we have closer relation- ships (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998). The second factor is whether we have the general proclivity to lie. Prolific liars, according to researchers (Serota, Levine, & Boster, 2010), are individuals who engage in substantially more deception than the majority of the population. Participants in one study (Serota et al., 2010) reported that they told approximately one to two lies per day on average, but the study results indicate that this approximate range is a misleading figure. The prolific liars—who made up 5% of a representative sample of 1,000 American adults— told 50% of all the lies reported in the study (Serota et al., 2010). Of the remaining 95% of this sample, only 40% reported that they had told a lie in the previous 24 hours. Thus, a small group of people told the bulk of lies on a given day, so averaging the number of lies across all individuals provides inaccurate information about how frequently we deceive others.

The final factor that can impact deception prevalence is age. High school students tell an aver- age of four lies per day (Levine, Serota, Carey, & Messer, 2013). This average is higher than that of both college students, who tell over two lies per day, and adults, who tell fewer than two lies per day (Serota et al., 2010). Further, in contrast to DePaulo and Kashy’s (1998) find- ings for college students, high school students actually told more lies to their friends and fam- ily than to strangers or acquaintances (Levine et al., 2013). Thus, it is possible that as age and cognitive and emotional maturity increase, the inclination to lie to others decreases.

Types of Deception How prevalent deception is when we are interacting with others also depends on what type of deception is taking place. According to Judee Burgoon and her colleagues (Burgoon, Buller, Ebesu, & Rockwell, 1994), there are three broad types of deception that we can communicate to others (see Table 9.2):

1. Falsifications are the outright lies or falsehoods that we tell that we typically associ- ate with being deceptive. Telling your friend that you already have plans and cannot hang out with him when you have nothing scheduled and just do not want to spend time with him is an example of a falsification. Falsification is the most frequent and the most deceptive type of lie that we tell, and it is also the most difficult to detect (Burgoon et al., 1994).

Section 9.2Relationship Challenges

2. Concealment occurs when you communicatively omit or leave out information that is relevant to a person or to a particular situation. For example, if a teenager tells her parents she is going to spend the weekend at the beach but doesn’t tell them her boyfriend will be there, she is concealing information that they would probably consider important.

3. Equivocation includes messages that are ambiguous, unclear, and indirect. For example, if Sharon asks Bill, her romantic partner, if her outfit makes her look fat, and Bill responds by saying, “Your hair looks great!” instead of telling Sharon that it might be a good idea to change what she is wearing, Bill is equivocating. When liars use equivocation, they are most likely to have their lie detected.

Table 9.2: Three types of deception Type Description Proximity to truth

Falsification Messages present outright lies or falsehoods

Type of deception farthest from truth

Concealment Messages omit information or specific details

Type of deception between truth and lie

Equivocation Messages present distorted or ambiguous information

Type of deception closest to truth

The next section delves into more detail about how skilled (or not) we are at determining whether someone is being deceptive with us.

Deception Detection As we noted in Chapter 4, humans are not very skilled at detecting deception in others, with many research studies (Miller & Stiff, 1993) finding that we only have a 55% chance of being accurate in any given deception detection situation. Even police detectives, who are trained in detecting deception in suspects, were only 49% accurate in knowing when someone was lying in one study (Vrij, 1993); this mediocre accuracy rate was achieved even though they used nonverbal communication (such as vocal changes, avoiding eye contact, and changes in body movements), social cues (such as acting anxious or introverted), and physical appear- ance characteristics (such as gender and how the individual was dressed) in their judgments of whether the individual was lying. The accuracy rate, which is just less than 50%, was in sharp contrast to the detectives’ high levels of confidence in the accuracy of their judgments. In other words, the police detectives were very certain in their judgments of whether the per- son they interviewed was lying, but they were only accurate in detecting deception less than half of the time.

There are a number of reasons why we have trouble identifying lies. First, we tend to focus on nonverbal communication, even though research has shown that less than 3% of successful deception detection situations involve only nonverbal messages (Park, Levine, McCornack, Morrison, & Ferrara, 2002). The idea that we focus on (and are thus distracted by) nonverbal communication rather than on other indicators of deception is the heart of the distraction hypothesis. In support of the distraction hypothesis, lies were most commonly detected in Hee Sun Park and colleagues’ (2002) study by way of a third party, meaning that someone else gave the person information that made it clear that his or her partner was lying. Pulling

Section 9.2Relationship Challenges

a friend aside and telling her that you saw her boyfriend at a party, after he had told her he had not attended, is an example of third-party deception detection. Another way that Park and colleagues’ (2002) participants detected another’s deception was via physical evidence, such as finding lipstick on a romantic partner’s collar or searching his or her Internet browser history to look for evidence of cheating. Other sources of information and other types of mes- sages appear to be more useful than nonverbal communication when we want to determine whether someone is lying to us.

A second reason that we have difficulty detecting others’ deception is that we have a truth bias, which means that we enter into interactions with others believing they will be hon- est. We believe that being deceptive is a violation of implied rules of both relationships and conversations (Aune, Ching, & Levine, 1996). The presence of this truth bias is particularly relevant when we communicate with those we are closest to: We trust these individuals, and part of that trust means we can believe what they tell us. Even though we know, based on the statistics discussed previously, that people we communicate with can be deceptive, this truth bias persists. To some extent, the truth bias is necessary for interactions and relationships to be successful. If we had to question or doubt everything we were told, communication would devolve into chaos, and it would be impossible to build relationships with others. Thus, you should continue to believe that those you interact with are being mostly truthful while keep- ing in mind that they may occasionally deceive you (as you likely do to them as well).

The third reason we are not skilled at deception detection in our interactions relates to the leakage hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, proposed by Paul Ekman and Wallace Fri- esen (1969), we believe that being communicatively deceptive creates internal thoughts and emotions that unintentionally “leak” out nonverbally and are observed by others. The leakage hypothesis thus supposes that liars are unable to control elements of their behavior and that looking for these uncontrollable behaviors can help us determine whether they are lying. For example, many people believe that the face is the most difficult area to control when someone is lying, and they focus on the face when looking for unintentional behaviors, such as shifting eyes, when trying to determine whether information is truth or lie. One problem with the leakage hypothesis is that people who are intentionally deceptive make an effort to control how they behave and the messages they encode. Another problem is that leaked behaviors may not always indicate deception. For example, we could appear nervous because we are anxious about social situations. Or we could seem stiff and disinterested because we dislike the person we are talking to. As a result, assuming that deceptive behaviors naturally and uncontrollably leak out of a liar is not a useful method for detecting deception.

So, how do we determine whether someone is lying to us when they communicate? Unfortu- nately, there is no universal method for successfully detecting deception, but there are tech- niques that can increase your odds:

• Ask strategic, direct questions that interrogate the potential deceiver, such as “Are you telling me the truth?” In instances where these direct, focused questions were asked, deception detection accuracy rose from 44% to almost 70% (Levine, Shaw, & Shulman, 2010).

• Use past experiences and interactions with the individual as a gauge. Consider whether the individual’s behavior is different from or unlike his or her usual behav- iors. Shifts away from a normal communication pattern can indicate deception, and we are able to pick up on such differences when we are familiar with a person and know them well (Jensen & Burgoon, 2008).

Section 9.2Relationship Challenges

• Understand the types of and reasons for deception that we described above—this information will aid you in focusing your deception detection efforts toward the right areas (e.g., inconsistencies in someone’s verbal messages) and away from the wrong ones (e.g., nonverbal communication cues such as eye contact and fidgeting).

• Use multiple methods—communicative and otherwise. Park and colleagues (2002) found that individuals who used multiple methods to try to detect deception—for example, combining physical evidence with communicatively seeking information from third parties or directly, verbally confronting the deceiver—increased the like- lihood of uncovering the truth.

It helps to have a better understanding of the pitfalls of deception detection because this can help you approach or respond to interactions if you think someone may be lying to you.

Verbal and Online Abuse One of the most harmful ways that we can communicate with those we are closest to is by engaging in verbal abuse. Verbal abuse is a form of interpersonal communication that occurs when individuals use words to threaten or be hostile toward another. Threatening to harm someone, being insulting, engaging in relentless, intense verbal conflicts, and coercing via verbal threats or force are examples of verbal abuse. Verbal aggression is a specific type of verbal abuse that involves attacking a person’s self-concept rather than his or her position about a topic or issue (Infante, 1987). For example, when debating about politics with some- one, you act in a verbally aggressive way if you say, “You are clearly stupid!” rather than “Your position on that candidate is flawed.” In this way, verbal aggression is a clear way to disrespect someone, a violation of one of the principles of competent interpersonal communication pre- sented in Chapter 1.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010) found that verbal abuse was the third most common adverse experience that a child could have, after a member of the household engaging in substance abuse and parents separating or divorcing. In addition, 17% of college students (22% of females and 11% of males) have been the victims of verbal abuse by a dat- ing partner (Knowledge Networks, 2011). Consistently enduring verbal abuse from someone can be damaging to one’s health and well-being and is linked across studies to increases in stress and depression. Further, versus a control group, teenagers who were criminal offend- ers were more likely to have observed their parents verbally abuse each other and to have verbally abused their parents (Spillane-Grieco, 2000). Let’s discuss two specific aspects of verbal abuse: social aggression and cyberbullying.

Social Aggression Social aggression, also called relational aggression, is a specific form of interpersonal com- munication that occurs when a person attempts to harm another by manipulating their rela- tionships, such as by spreading gossip or hurtful rumors, by ostracizing that person from social situations or outings (Culotta & Goldstein, 2008), by ignoring the person, or by threatening to terminate their relationship (Willer & Cupach, 2011). Social aggression can also be expressed nonverbally by rolling one’s eyes, turning away from the victim, making facial expressions that mock or show disdain, or using threatening body movements or expressions (Willer & Cupach, 2011). The 2004 movie Mean Girls, starring Lindsay Lohan and Rachel McAdams, depicts the four members of a popular clique of high school girls called the Plastics as consistently engaging

Section 9.2Relationship Challenges

in social aggression by bad-mouthing one another behind their backs and going after one another’s boyfriends.

Research examining social aggression typi- cally focuses on adolescence, when social aggression is particularly prevalent. Young girls who are 12 to 19 years old, in particu- lar, use social aggression to protect their relationships and their standing in their peer groups as well as to be accepted by oth- ers (Underwood, 2003). Social aggression involving teen girls can include attempts to damage the victim’s relationship with a boy and frequently involves multiple perpetra- tors and witnesses (Willer & Cupach, 2008). According to one study, adolescent girls who engage in socially-aggressive behaviors are also more likely to have been exposed to televised social aggression (Martins & Wil- son, 2011), suggesting a link between media portrayals and interpersonal behaviors.

What are the impacts and correlates of social aggression? Generally, being a victim of social aggression increases the likelihood that you will be lonely, depressed, anxious, have decreased self-esteem and increased physical ailments, experience lower performance in school, and that you will have difficulty relating to your peers. In addition, the more an adolescent is socially aggressive toward others, the lower his or her academic achievement and the more he or she feels alienated (Martins & Wilson, 2011). Being socially aggressive also means that you are more likely to be physically aggressive (Culotta & Goldstein, 2008). Further, in one study of high school females, the victim felt more negative emotions such as distress, fear, and upset when a high school girl who was more popular than the victim committed a mean act and when multiple girls were involved in the mean act (Willer & Cupach, 2008). Experienc- ing jealousy about a friend also meant that adolescent same-sex friends were more likely to engage in social aggression (Parker, Low, Walker, & Gamm, 2005).

Unfortunately, although there are clearly a number of short- and long-term negative conse- quences for victims of social aggression, there is often little recourse when it occurs. Social aggression is not typically formally prohibited at school or in the workplace, making it dif- ficult to punish the perpetrator (Culotta & Goldstein, 2008). In some instances, such as the spreading of gossip and rumors, you may not even know who the perpetrator was or from where the information originated (Culotta & Goldstein, 2008). Furthermore, it can be difficult to identify because there is a fine line between social aggression and simply ending a friend- ship (Culotta & Goldstein, 2008). As an adult, consider using the following techniques with the adolescents in your life to help monitor for and prevent social aggression and bullying (GreatSchools Staff, n.d.):

• Ask about how school is going, listen to the responses, and evaluate changes in mood.

• Teach listening skills and empathy, emphasizing the importance of learning to understand others’ points of view.

Lisa Quarfoth/Hemera/Thinkstock ሁ Social aggression is most prevalent during

adolescence.

Section 9.2Relationship Challenges

• Monitor for signs of social aggression or bullying, either as the possible aggressor or victim.

• Encourage children to talk about the issue with a trusted friend, family member, or guidance counselor.

• Work with school personnel to help make the school a safe environment.

Thankfully, as we grow older and become more mature, social aggression becomes less com- mon, although it may never entirely disappear. Some researchers suggest that being socially aggressive can foster a positive identity and a greater sense of belonging, meaning that there may be limited benefits of social aggression (Willer & Cupach, 2011).

Cyberbullying What is cyberbullying? Cyberbullying occurs when an individual intentionally engages in hurtful communication via technological or mediated devices or channels such as the Inter- net or a smartphone (Erdur-Baker, 2009). For example, a number of well-publicized cases of youth deaths by suicide have happened because of cyberbullying. In one, despite her mother’s attempts to delete her daughter’s Facebook account and monitor her social media usage, the victim reportedly received online interpersonal communication messages saying: “Go kill yourself ” and “Why are you still alive?” (Associated Press, para. 1). Though this is an extreme example, many of these cases evolved from instances of conflict, jealousy, and deception.

There are many different forms of cyberbullying that are considered forms of interpersonal communication, including insulting, gossiping, or spreading rumors about someone through a mediated channel such as a text message, e-mail, or instant message; exclusion of an indi- vidual from an online group or interaction; sending or posting inappropriate photos or vid- eos of someone to social media; violating someone’s trust by sharing private information online; and pretending to be someone else when interacting online or via mediated channels (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009). Cyberbullying is viewed as a byproduct of individu- als feeling anonymous, and thus uninhibited, in online and mediated environments. Michael Greene (2006) notes that cyberbullying differs from face-to-face bullying in three ways:

• Victims may not know who the perpetrator is. • The power imbalance between victim and perpetrator is one of technological knowl-

edge and literacy. • Bullying can occur anywhere, and it is not restricted to a physical location such as at

school.

As with social aggression, cyberbullying is primarily a communication behavior enacted by young people. A general estimate of the percentage of American teens who have been victims of cyberbullying is 15% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017; National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). Further, 59% experienced at least one form of abusive inter- personal communication-related online messages, including name-calling, physical threats, and explicit images being shared of them without their consent (Anderson, 2018).

The issue of cyber abuse, which a government report concluded was “substantial,” is being dealt with at the interpersonal, relational, social, and even governmental level (Zweig, Dank, Lachman, & Yahner, 2013, p. xi). At the interpersonal level, Amanda Lenhart and her col- leagues (2011) found that 84% of teens in their sample observed their peers responding to cyberbullying by using communication to defend the victim or tell the bully to stop. Relation- ally, 86% of teens in Lenhart and colleagues’ study (2011) reported that their parents had

Section 9.3Strategies for Communicating Competently During Challenging Times

advised them about how to be safe and act responsibly online. Anderson (2018) recently found that 59% of teens had a favorable view of how their parents addressed cyberbullying. A recent meta-analysis of research on the effectiveness of in-school cyberbullying prevention programs found that they are generally effective in decreasing cyberbullying perpetration by 9% to 15% and victimization by 14% to 15% (Gaffney, Harrington, Espelage, & Ttofi, 2019).

Finally, the growing number of teen suicides in response to cyberbullying has caused, as of June 2019, 48 states and the District of Columbia to enact cyberbullying legislation (Cyber- bullying.org, n.d.). These measures suggest that the public is taking cyberbullying and its effects seriously. Consider using the following techniques to help you and your family prevent cyberbullying (StopBullying.gov, 2017):

• Establish clear expectations about digital behaviors and online reputation. • Educate about the destructive effects of cyberbullying, posting offensive messages,

sexting, and sharing explicit images (including potential legal issues). • Be clear about content that can be viewed and shared. • Identify which apps and social media platforms are appropriate and which are not. • Establish guidelines about the amount of time that can be spent online or on devices. • Model positive, respectful digital behavior.

It is important to note that, unlike the other three relationship challenges outlined in this chapter, there are very few positive interpersonal communication effects associated with ver- bal abuse, social aggression, or cyberbullying. These aggressive interpersonal behaviors hurt others and can have long-lasting psychological and physiological effects. Perhaps the only benefit to experiencing these forms of abuse is that it is a clear signal that you should imme- diately end your relationship with the abuser.

9.3 Strategies for Communicating Competently During Challenging Times

Rather than trying to eliminate all challenges and negative communication experiences in our close relationships, a more realistic goal is to learn how to better manage these dark interac- tions when they do occur. The following sections present specific strategies for competently communicating during challenging relationship times.

Express Your Thoughts and Emotions Constructively In most interactions, competent communication starts with expressing your thoughts and emotions in a helpful or constructive way. It is best to avoid judging or blaming your rela- tional partner because such messages will not assist in accomplishing shared meaning and can actually cause conflict. Below are some ideas about when and how to express your emo- tions in a constructive manner.

Determine the Appropriate Time and Place to Express Your Thoughts and Emotions Once you identify your thoughts and emotions, you should figure out the appropriate time and place to express them. Sometimes this is immediately. Maybe you are at a wedding and the bride and groom have just exchanged their vows and kissed—expressing your thoughts

Section 9.3Strategies for Communicating Competently During Challenging Times

and feelings of joy right at the moment would be appropriate. However, just because you are experiencing something does not mean that you must express it immediately, especially if the situation in which you experience the emotion is not the appropriate time for you to address it with the other person. For example, you might be angry at remarks your significant other made at a party, but to avoid making a scene you would probably want to wait until you were at home to discuss just how angry you were. When you put emotions on hold in a situation like this, try to take the earliest appropriate opportunity to discuss the issue with the other person and air out these feelings. Most importantly, do not let your emotions build up and fester over time.

Use “I” Statements An important key to constructively handling your interactions with others is to take respon- sibility for your role in the interactions. Instead of accusing someone of causing your emotion by saying, “You make me angry,” it is more accurate and more responsible to say, “I feel angry.” You can mention what the other person is doing that is causing you to feel anger. However, it is important to simply describe the behavior and not judge it. For example, when talking to a significant other, you might say, “Because you are not looking at me when I am talking to you, I feel that you are not interested in what I have to say.” This “I” statement is an example of how one might communicate as part of the collaborative conflict style and describes both how you feel and describes the other person’s behavior without attacking him or her. This approach is much more constructive than using a “you” message such as, “You are rude for not looking at me when I am speaking, and that’s why I am angry.” “You are rude” judges the behavior and then blames the other person for your feeling with the statement, “That’s why I am angry.” It thus reflects the competitive conflict style that we discussed earlier in this chapter.

Improve Your Conflict Management Skills It is important to remember that conflict is natural and its expression is bound to occur in any relationship. Instead of always avoid- ing or aggressively entering into a conflict interaction, try to manage or resolve your differences as competently and construc- tively as possible. Use the following com- munication techniques to help develop this skill:

• Identify and encourage positive emotions.

• Understand and strengthen your interpersonal communication skills.

• Monitor and modify your behaviors and messages.

• Recognize and acknowledge when a conflict might not be resolvable.

Because research has shown that positive emotions are important during conflict resolution, reminding the other person how much you care for him or her, gently teasing each other, or

Cathy Yeulet/Hemera/Thinkstock ሁ Interpersonal communication skills can be

used to help prevent conflict. Pay attention to the effects of your speech and behavior and recognize when they can be modified to prevent or diminish conflicts.

Summary and Resources

nonverbally showing affection to the other person, such as hugging him or her, are methods you can use to de-escalate a conflict interaction. Your knowledge of the other person and how he or she might react to such displays should govern whether and how you use any of these methods. Remembering the positive things about your relationship when you are in conflict can often allow you to work out differences and have a mutually satisfying resolution—or at least conclusion to that particular interaction—that preserves a happy relationship.

You can also often manage conflict by using the other interpersonal communication skills discussed in this text and increasing your awareness of your own communication behaviors. Are you unconsciously creating potential conflict situations through your use of threatening language? Is your nonverbal behavior—personal space, eye contact, and vocal volume, for example—at times domineering or overbearing? Do you get overly emotional during conflict situations? Paying attention and modifying your behavior, checking your perceptions with other people, practicing effective listening skills, and using the skills of active-empathic lis- tening discussed in Chapter 8 can all be useful means of preventing or diminishing conflict. Also, resist the temptation to judge others when they do not communicate as competently as you would like, and try to be tolerant and accepting of the behavior and messages of others when they explain things in more detail than you need, when they talk too slowly, or when they ramble.

Finally, recognize that you may not be able to resolve all conflicts with communication. Instead, you may have to strive to manage the conflict in a competent way. Conflict, when managed poorly, can sometimes lead to aggressive and violent behavior that can become dangerous and harmful to your safety and security. When conflict becomes destructive or physically, verbally, or emotionally abusive, removing yourself from the situation is likely the best—and safest—way to handle the issue.

(Occasionally) Embrace Your Communication “Dark Side” You have learned from this chapter that occasionally engaging in a challenging or difficult interaction can have some benefits. Completely avoiding negative interactions can prevent you and your partner from learning more about each other and from discussing potentially important issues. Engaging in conflict can help you gain a greater understanding of your part- ner’s point of view and, in turn, can help your partner learn more about your perspective. Expressing jealousy in a constructive way can show your partner that you care about and treasure your relationship. Being deceptive about a minor issue can be a way to protect your partner and prevent unnecessary conflict. Even encountering a partner’s abuse or aggres- sion can serve as a clear warning sign not to remain in the relationship. Though the majority of your interactions should be positive, seeing the bright side of the dark interactions with which you and your partner sometimes grapple can ultimately be informative and bring you closer together.

Summary and Resources Relationship challenges are inevitable, and understanding how to recognize them and how to competently manage them via communication is an important aspect of interpersonal communication. Understanding the “dark side” of communication helps us gain a clearer and more comprehensive picture of the role that communication plays in relationship function- ing. The impact of negative messages is typically much greater than that of positive ones, but

Summary and Resources

negative relationship experiences can have unexpected benefits, or offer new insights, for one or both relational partners.

Conflict is an expressed struggle between two interdependent parties who perceive incom- patible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in accomplishing their goals. Conflict can permanently damage a relationship. There are five styles we can use when in conflict: avoidance, accommodation, competition, compromise, and collaboration. There is also a difference between conflict management—which means that the issue is unresolved and likely to emerge again—and resolution—where the outcome is satisfying to both parties and is finished.

Jealousy occurs when an individual cognitively, emotionally, behaviorally, or communica- tively responds to perceptions of a rival to a close relationship. Jealousy can be experienced as a cluster or blend of different emotions and as thoughts or cognitions about the jealousy situation. We can express jealousy directly to our partner or in ways that our partner does not observe. We can also experience and express jealousy in online settings, where the most prevalent method of expressing jealousy is by engaging in surveillance.

We are deceptive when we create messages that we intend to be contrary to what we know to be the truth. This deception can be for self-centered or other-centered reasons; we are more likely to engage in other-centered deception with those we are close to. Deception can be prevalent, particularly when we include in our sample pool prolific liars who lie much more frequently than the rest of the general population. The types of deception are falsifications, concealments, and equivocations. The distraction hypothesis, truth bias, and leakage hypoth- esis are reasons why we have difficulty accurately determining whether someone is lying to us.

Verbal abuse occurs when we use language to threaten or be aggressive to a partner. Social aggression is a form of verbal abuse that harms or manipulates someone by damaging their relationships and is particularly likely in adolescence. Cyberbullying is another form of ver- bal abuse that involves hurtful communication over mediated channels. Attempts are being made to deal with cyberbullying at the individual, social, and governmental level in an effort to reduce the prevalence of this new relationship challenge.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions 1. Based on what you’ve learned in this chapter, why do you think that difficult,

destructive communication has more influence on a relationship and on individuals than positive messages? How can these experiences strengthen a relationship?

2. This chapter reviews five conflict styles. Based on that information, describe your own conflict style. How do you think it influences your conflicts with others? How can conflict styles influence whether a conflict is managed versus resolved?

3. In what different relationships and contexts have you experienced and expressed jealousy? How did you express your jealousy and what do you think were the out- comes associated with those messages?

4. How do you detect deception in your close relationships? Which detection tech- niques are more or less successful for you and why?

5. Based on what you have read thus far in this text, what would you recommend to someone who was experiencing verbal abuse, social aggression, or cyberbullying?

Summary and Resources

Key Terms accommodation conflict style A style of handling conflict in which one has low concern for the self but high concern for the other person.

avoidance conflict style A style of han- dling conflict in which one has low concern for the self and low concern for the other person.

cognitive jealousy One of the two parts of the experience of jealousy; concerned with the thoughts experienced during the jeal- ousy situation.

collaboration conflict style A style of han- dling conflict in which one has high concern for the self and high concern for the other person.

competition conflict style A style of han- dling conflict in which one has high concern for the self and low concern for the other person.

compromise conflict style A style of handling conflict in which one is moderately concerned both for the self and the other person.

concealment A type of deception that includes omitting information that is rel- evant to a particular person or to a particu- lar situation.

conflict An expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who per- ceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their aims.

conflict resolution When parties end a conflict, are both satisfied with the result, and do not have interactions concerning the conflict again.

conflict styles Patterned behavioral responses that individuals use across differ- ent conflicts and with different people.

cyberbullying Intentionally engaging in hurtful communication via technological or mediated devices or channels.

dark side of interpersonal communica- tion Interactions that are challenging, diffi- cult, distressing, and problematic in nature.

deception Encoding messages that encour- age information or beliefs that are contrary to the truth.

distraction hypothesis The idea that we focus on, and are thus distracted by, non- verbal communication rather than on other indicators of deception.

emotional jealousy One of the two parts of the jealousy experience; a blend of feel- ings that are related to jealousy.

equivocation A type of deception that includes purposely transmitting distorted or ambiguous information.

falsifications Types of deception that include telling outright lies or falsehoods.

“I” statement A statement that describes both how one feels and describes the other person’s behavior without attacking or blaming.

jealousy Cognitive, emotional, and behav- ioral responses associated with an indi- vidual’s need to protect a relationship that is threatened by a third party, often referred to as a rival.

jealousy experience An individual’s emo- tional and cognitive responses to jealousy.

Summary and Resources

jealousy expression Action or communi- cation that results from the experience of jealousy.

leakage hypothesis The belief that being deceptive creates internal thoughts and emotions that unintentionally “leak” out and are subsequently observed by others.

online interpersonal surveillance The intentional use of communication technolo- gies to learn more about another person’s online and off-line activities.

other-centered deception Lies that are told to protect or benefit another person.

self-centered deception Lies that are told to protect or benefit the liar.

serial argument A disagreement or con- flict about a particular topic or issue that recurs over time and without resolution.

social aggression Attempting to harm another by manipulating the person’s rela- tionships; also called relational aggression.

truth bias The belief that when we enter into interactions with others, they will be honest with us in those interactions.

verbal abuse The use of words to directly threaten or be aggressive toward another.

verbal aggression A specific type of verbal abuse that involves attacking a person’s self- concept rather than his or her position about a topic or issue.