(Bryan Strong, Christine DeVault, Theodore F. Cohe (BookFi)

7
© Hitoshi Nishimura/Getty Images/Taxi Japan
220
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.
Verbal and Nonverbal Power, Conflict, and Intimacy 237 Helping Yourself by Getting Help 255
Communication 223
Explanations of Marital Power 239 Summary 257
Gender Differences in
Intimacy and Conflict 241
Communication 228
Dealing with Conflict 243
Communication Patterns
in Marriage 229 Consequences of Conflict 252
Other Problems in Communication 233 Resolving Conflicts 253
Communication, Power, and Conflict
What Do YOU Think? Are the following statements TRUE or FALSE?

You may be surprised by the answers (see answer key on the following page).
T F 1 Conflict and intimacy go hand in hand in intimate relationships.
T F 2 Touching is one of the most significant means of communication.
T F 3 Avoiding conflict is the best way to sustain intimacy.
4 Studies suggest that those couples with the highest marital satisfaction tend to disclose more
T F than those who are unsatisfied.
5 Negative communication patterns before marriage are a poor predictor of marital communication
T F because people change once they are married.
T F 6 Partners tend to communicate sexual interest and disinterest nonverbally more than verbally.
7 Women’s power in marriage inevitably increases when she earns as much or more than
T F her husband.
T F 8 The party with the least interest in continuing a relationship generally has the power in it.
T F 9 The meaning conveyed through nonverbal communication is precise and unambiguous.
T F 10 Wives tend to give more negative messages than husbands.
221
“Y
our mother called again.” characteristics or qualities you desire in such relation-
That seems like such a simple, ordinary ships, somewhere on that list will be “communica-
statement. It hardly seems like the kind of tion.” We want our loved ones to share their feelings
comment that would provoke an argument, nor does it and ideas with us and to understand the ideas or
appear particularly revealing about the tone or quality feelings that we voice to them. After all, as shown in
of a marriage or relationship. In fact, it sounds so rou- Chapter 5, that is how we expect to share intimacy. We
tine, so “matter of fact,” that we might overlook its sig- want to be able to communicate effectively.
nificance and potential effect on married or coupled life. Chances are that “conflict” will not be included
Of course, we only have the four words; we don’t among desired relationship characteristics. After all,
know how they were said. What was the tone of voice, who wants to argue? We tend to see conflict as a nega-
the cadence or rhythm of speech? Was it, “Your mother tive to be avoided. Yet conflict is as much a feature of
called again” or “Your mother called. Again.” Or, intimate relationships as are love and affection. As
combining tone and cadence, “Your mother called. long as we value, care about, and live with others, we
Again!” We also have no information about the non- will experience occasions when we disagree, when
verbal signs. What was the expression on the face of the disagreements lead to conflict, and when we find
speaker—say a wife to a husband—when the statement ourselves in the middle of arguments. An absence of
was made? Did she smile? Roll her eyes? Frown? Shake conflict not only is unrealistic but would be unhealthy
her head? All these aspects of nonverbal communica- as well. How we resolve our disagreements tells us
tion help reveal more of the meaning and significance much about the health of our relationships.
of such a statement. Clearly, seemingly simple com- Both communication and conflict are inextrica-
ments such as this may have greater importance than bly connected to intimacy. When we speak of com-
whatever words they otherwise convey. munication, we mean more than just the ability to
Finally, of potentially even greater significance is relay information (e.g., “Your mother called”), discuss
how the other person responds to a statement such problems, and resolve conflicts. We also mean com-
as this one. Whether he or she responds with “an ir- munication for its own sake: the pleasure of being in
ritable groan,” a laugh (as if to say, “What, again!”), each other’s company, the excitement of conversation,
a defensive explanation of the frequency of such ma- the exchange of touches and smiles, and the loving
ternal phone conversations, an expression of concern silences. Through communication, we disclose who
(“I hope she’s all right”), or a positive discussion of we are, and from this self-disclosure, intimacy grows.
his or her mother tells us a lot. A nonresponse may One of the most common complaints of mar-
tell us yet more. It may suggest indifference and lack ried partners, especially unhappy partners, is that
of interest in talking with the partner. Exchanges sur- they don’t communicate. But it is impossible not to
rounding statements such as this one, “mundane and communicate—a cold look may communicate anger
fleeting” as they may appear to be, can build and, in as effectively as a fierce outburst of words. What these
the process, greatly affect the quality of a relationship, unhappy partners mean by “not communicating” is
the amount and nature of conflict, and the feeling of that their communication is somehow driving them
closeness and romance (Driver and Gottman 2004). apart rather than bringing them together, feeding and
Thinking about the kinds of relationships that creating conflict rather than resolving it. Communi-
are the focus of this book, what is it you most want cation patterns are strongly associated with marital
or expect from marriages, families, and other inti- satisfaction (Noller and Fitzpatrick 1991).
mate relationships? Chances are, if you list the many In this chapter, we explore patterns and problems
in communication in marital and intimate relation-
ships. We also examine the role of power in marital
relationships, where it comes from, and how it is
Answer Key to What Do YOU Think? expressed in both the styles of communication and
the outcomes of conflict. Finally, we look at the re-
lationship between conflict and intimacy, exploring
1 True, see p. 241; 2 True, see p. 227; 3 False, see different types of conflict and approaches to conflict
p. 222; 4 True, see p. 234; 5 False, see p. 229;
6 False, see p. 232; 7 False, see p. 240; 8 True, see
resolution. We look especially at three of the more
p. 239; 9 False, see p. 224; 10 True, see p. 229. common areas of relationship conflict: conflicts about
sex, money, and housework.
222 Chapter Seven
Verbal and Nonverbal or command). To understand the full content of any
message, we need to understand both the verbal and
Communication the nonverbal parts.
For a message to be most effective, both the verbal
When we communicate face-to-face, the messages we and the nonverbal components should be in agree-
send and receive contain both a verbal and a nonver- ment. If you are angry and say “I’m angry,” and both
bal component. Verbal communication expresses the your facial expression and your voice show anger, the
basic content of the message, whereas nonverbal com- message is clear and convincing. But if you say “I’m
munication reflects more of the relationship part of the angry” in a neutral tone of voice and a smile on your
message. The relationship part conveys the attitude of face, your message is ambiguous. More commonly,
the speaker (friendly, neutral, or hostile) and indicates if you say “I’m not angry” but clench your teeth and
how the words are to be interpreted (as a joke, request, use a controlled voice, your message is also unclear.
Popular Culture: Staying Connected with Technology
Suppose you received the following text message while in frequently. Although 37% of married respondents said that
class or at work or while otherwise engaged in some activ- they had e-mailed their spouse at least once, only 8% said
ity away from your significant other: that they did so daily. Similarly, only 8% of married indi-
“Luv u. Miss u. C u later.” viduals said that they exchanged text messages with their
Despite your physical separation, it is likely that you spouse daily, though 21% reported having done so in the
would recognize such a message as a warm and loving past. Respondents with children showed a greater use of
gesture, a means of staying connected and feeling close, text messaging to communicate with their children; 12% of
despite being in different places and engaged in different fathers and 28% of mothers reported exchanging text mes-
activities. Such messages, made possible and more likely sages with their children at least once a day (Kennedy et al.
given the immense spread of cell phone technology, add 2008). These percentages have no doubt increased as text
a dimension of closeness to our romantic and familial messaging has become much more common. Although
relationships. more recent couple data were unavailable, the trend among
According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project teens and young adults indicates a dramatic increase in the
2008 report, “Networked Families,” 89% of married (or ownership of cell phones and in the daily use of text mes-
cohabiting) households with 7- to 17-year-old children saging (Lenhart 2009). In the fourth quarter of 2008, U.S.
have multiple cell phones; almost half of such house- teens averaged nearly 80 text messages a day, more than
holds have three or more phones. In households where double the average from the prior year (Hafner 2009).
both partners have cell phones, 70% contact each other “Texting” has special utility for those who choose to
at least once a day to say hello or chat. For perhaps the use it. For the most part, texting is possible when phone
busiest couples, cell phones are also used to coordinate calls may not be available or desirable. With their neces-
their “highly scheduled lives” (Kennedy, Smith, Wells, and sary brevity, they are still a means of maintaining and
Wellman 2008). For nearly two-thirds of couples in which displaying “connectedness” between sender and recipi-
each partner owns a cell phone, spouses contact each ent (Pettigrew 2007). In a qualitative interview study,
other at least once a day to coordinate their schedules and Jonathan Pettigrew quotes one husband:
activities. Couples with children display even more fre-
When you’re with a bunch of guys you don’t want to be
quent use of cell phones: 70% contact each other to coor-
seen on the phone talking to your wife, so I might text her
dinate and review their daily schedules, and 74% contact
then. (12)
each other “to stay in touch and say hello.”
In addition to cell phones (and to land-line phones), For romantic partners especially, text messages were use-
couples use other technologies—from text messages, ful as a nearly always available means of “connectedness-
e-mail, and instant messaging—to keep in touch. According oriented communication,” a way to create and maintain a
to data gathered between December 2007 and January sense of emotional and relational connection” (Pettigrew
2008, these other technologies are not used nearly as 2007, 25).
Communication, Power, and Conflict 223
Your tone and expression make your spoken message More than 20 years ago, an important study of
difficult to take at face value. nonverbal communication and marital interaction
In addition to both verbal and nonverbal commu- found that nonverbal communication has the fol-
nication, increasingly people are communicating with lowing three important functions in marriage (Noller
each other via technologies that allow some of the 1984): (1) conveying interpersonal attitudes, (2) ex-
same qualities of verbal communication minus any pressing emotions, and (3) handling the ongoing
of the information conveyed nonverbally or via tone interaction.
of voice. Such electronically mediated communication
is rapidly increasing and, along with an increase in Conveying Interpersonal Attitudes
volume of use, has become a unique tool in maintain- Nonverbal messages are used to convey attitudes. Hold-
ing relationships (see the Popular Culture feature in ing hands can suggest intimacy; sitting on opposite
this chapter). sides of the couch can suggest distance. Not looking
at each other in conversation can suggest discomfort
or lack of intimacy. Rolling eyes at another’s statement
The Functions of Nonverbal conveys a negative attitude or reaction to what’s being
Communication said or the person saying it, even if the eye-rolling cul-
prit claims, “What? I didn’t say anything.”
Whenever two or more people are together and aware
of each other, it is impossible for them not to com- Expressing Emotions
municate. Even when you are not talking, you com- Our emotional states are expressed through our bod-
municate by your silence (e.g., an awkward silence, a ies. A depressed person walks slowly, head hanging;
hostile silence, or a tender silence). You communicate a happy person walks with a spring. Smiles, frowns,
by the way you position your body and tilt your head, furrowed brows, tight jaws, tapping fingers—all express
your facial expressions, your physical distance from emotion. Expressing emotion is important because it
the other person or people, and so on. Take a mo- lets our partner know how we are feeling so that he or
ment, right now, and look around you. If there are she can respond appropriately. It also allows our part-
other people in your presence, how and what are they ner to share our feelings, whether that means to laugh
communicating nonverbally? or weep with us. It is this feature of nonverbal com-
Research supports the idea that nonverbal communication that is most lacking from phone conversa-
munication has important consequences that extend tions and electronic communication. Without those
beyond the message and the moment. For example, emotional cues that we read and come to depend on, it
parents can affect their children’s physical and mental is sometimes a challenge to know just what the person
health by their nonverbal communication. The same on the other end of the phone is “really saying.”
is true of marital partners’ effects on each other. Sup-
portive nonverbal behavior can benefit relationship Handling the Ongoing Interaction
partners by actually affecting their immune system Nonverbal communication helps us handle the ongo-
and their overall health. Negative nonverbal commu- ing interaction by indicating interest and attention. An
nication can negatively impact individual (marital) intent look indicates our interest in the conversation;
partners as well as threaten the stability of the rela- checking one’s watch or yawning can indicate bore-
tionship between them (Giles and LePoire 2006). dom. Posture and eye contact are especially impor-
One of the problems with nonverbal communica- tant. Are you leaning toward the person with interest
tion, however, is the imprecision of its messages. Is or slumping back, thinking about something else? Do
a person frowning or squinting? Does the smile in- you look at the person who is talking, or are you dis-
dicate friendliness or nervousness? A person may be tracted, glancing at other people as they walk by or
in reflective silence, but we may interpret the silence watching the clock?
as disapproval or distance. We may incorrectly infer
meanings from expressions, eye contact, stance, and The Importance of Nonverbal Communication
proximity that are other than what is intended. How- According to psychologist John Gottman (1994), even
ever, by acting on the meaning we read into nonverbal seemingly simple acts, such as rolling one’s eyes in re-
behavior, we give it more weight and make it of greater sponse to a statement or complaint made by a spouse,
consequence than it initially might have been. can convey contempt, a feeling that the target of the
224 Chapter Seven
of raising your hands in front of yourself and “pushing
at the air” communicates defensiveness to those you are
interacting with; it is as if you were saying “back off.” In
fact, nonverbally, you are saying just that.
Shifting from negative to positive, such nonverbal
behaviors as touch, proximity (i.e., physical closeness),
smiling, and gazing help define the intimacy of an
interaction. Such behaviors also differentiate closer
from more casual relationships and, within relation-
ships, more satisfied from less satisfied partners. In the
next section, we will look specifically at some impor-
tant means of communicating nonverbally.
Proximity, Eye Contact, and Touch

Three forms of nonverbal communication that are
especially interesting are proximity, eye contact, and
© Christopher Thomas/Getty Images/Store
touch. Awareness of the ways in which such forms

of nonverbal communication convey intimacy may
enable one to observe interactions and get a fairly
good sense of the closeness and warmth within that
relationship.
Proximity
Nearness, in terms of physical space, time, and so on,
Even the act of gently touching hands can communicate
closeness between two people.
is referred to as proximity. Where we sit or stand rela-
tive to another person can signify levels of intimacy
or the type of relationship. In a social situation, the
face-to-face distances between people when starting a
expression is undesirable. Contempt can be displayed conversation are clues to how the individuals wish to
verbally as well through such things as insults, sar- define the relationship. A distance of 0 to 18 inches
casm, and mockery. Along with contempt, there are is considered an intimate zone not typically found
three other negative behaviors that indicate particu- among people interacting in public settings and typi-
larly troubled and vulnerable relationships. These oth- cally reserved for one’s intimate relationships (e.g.,
ers are criticism (especially when it is overly harsh), romantic partners, close friends, parents, and young
defensiveness, and stonewalling or avoiding. Together, children). Within this intimate zone, multiple senses
these four behaviors make up Gottman’s “four horse- are involved, and the other person is seen “up close”
men of the apocalypse,” spelling potential for eventual wherein all details of complexion, eye color, hair roots,
divorce (Gottman 1994). Eventually, Gottman added wrinkles around one’s eyes, and so on can be observed
a fifth—belligerence. Gottman suggested that all these while, at the same time, characteristics of the body and
are warning signs of serious risk of eventual divorce extremities may not be. Aside from visual imagery,
(Gottman 1994; Gottman et al. 1998). Conversely, scents and sounds (e.g., of breath and of breathing)
couples who communicate with affection and interest are also accessible within this narrow spatial distance
and who maintain humor amid conflict can use such a (Altman and Chemers 1984).
positive affect to diffuse potentially threatening conflict The intimate zone is followed by a space of 1.5 to
(Gottman et al. 1998). 4 feet that Hall (1966) considered one’s personal
As you think about Gottman’s danger signs, consider space. Within this area, one can access a variety of
how easily they can be expressed and conveyed via non- kinds of sensory information, though not with the
verbal communication as well as by things we say to same detail as in the intimate zone. One is close
each other. For example, failing to make eye contact is enough to touch the person, one can see details of a
a way of avoiding or stonewalling. The common gesture person’s appearance, and one can still obtain some
(though not as much) sense of the person’s scent. It is Eye Contact and Facial Expressions
the more common distance at which people interact In looking for signs of the degree of closeness or in-
in public and allows them to move closer (as intimacy timacy shared between two people, eye contact is an
might dictate) or move even farther away from each important component. Much can be discovered about
other (Altman and Chemers 1984). a relationship by watching whether, how, and how
Although we speak here of the most personal zones long people look at each other. Making eye contact
as understood in the United States, all cultures have with another person, if only for a split second longer
their own standards of spatial norms. In most cul- than usual, is a signal of interest. Brief and extended
tures, decreasing the distance signifies an invitation to glances, in fact, play a significant role in women’s
greater intimacy or a threat. Moving away denotes the expression of initial interest (Moore 1985). When you
desire to terminate the interaction. For example, when can’t take your eyes off another person, you probably
standing at an intermediate distance from someone have a strong attraction to him or her. You can often
at a party, one sends the message that intimacy is not distinguish people in love by their prolonged look-
encouraged. If either party wants to move closer, how- ing into each other’s eyes. In addition to eye contact,
ever, he or she risks the chance of rejection. Therefore, dilated pupils may be an indication of sexual interest
they must seek out and exchange cues, such as eye (or poor lighting).
contact, laughter, or small talk, before moving closer Research suggests that the amount of eye contact
to avoid facing direct rejection. If the person moves between a couple having a conversation can distin-
farther away during this exchange or, worse, leaves al- guish between those who have high levels of conflict
together (“Excuse me, I think I see a friend”), he or she and those who don’t. Those with the greatest degree
is signaling disinterest. But if the person moves closer, of agreement have the greatest eye contact with each
there is the “proposal” for greater intimacy. other (Beier and Sternberg 1977). Those in conflict
As relationships develop, couples do more than tend to avoid eye contact (unless it is a daggerlike
just narrow the spatial distance that partners maintain stare). As with proximity, however, the level of eye
while interacting. They may also engage in close gaz- contact may differ by culture. For example, research
ing into each other’s eyes, holding hands, and walk- reveals that compared to Americans, Arabs gaze longer
ing with arms around each other. These require closer and more directly at their partners. Furthermore, in
proximity and signal greater intimacy. countries where physical touch or contact during in-
However, because of cultural differences, there teraction is accepted and common, individuals engage
can be misunderstandings. The neutral distance for in more gazing with those with whom they are inter-
Latinos, for example, is much closer than for Cau- acting than is observed among those in noncontact
casians, who may misinterpret the distance as close cultures (see Matsumoto 2006). In the United States,
(too close for comfort). In social settings, this can African Americans display less eye contact than do
lead to problems. As Carlos Sluzki (1982) pointed whites (Dovidio et al. 2006).
out, “A person raised in a non-Latino culture will de- Eye contact may be best understood as part of a
fine as seductive behavior the same behavior that a broader category of information and emotions con-
person raised in a Latin culture defines as socially veyed and communicated with one’s face. Via various
neutral.” Because of the miscue, the Caucasian may facial expressions, the face may be the most important
withdraw or flirt, depending on his or her feelings. In conveyor of the level of intimacy (or, conversely, ani-
addition, the neutral responses of people in cultures mosity) shared between people in social interaction.
with customs of greater intermediate distances and “Pleasant” facial expressions, especially smiles, help
less overt touching, such as Asian American culture, convey warmth and display a sense of comfort.
may be misinterpreted negatively by people of other Interesting research by psychologists Masaki Yuki,
cultural backgrounds. William Maddux, and Takahiko Masuda identified
There is more than just distance to consider. In ad- cultural differences between Japanese and Americans
dition to the actual space between two people, one in the importance paid to the eyes as opposed to the
can identify other physical signs that reveal aspects of mouth in conveying and interpreting emotions. They
the closeness or quality of their relationship. Two such suggest that the eyes are more of a diagnostic cue for
signs are body orientation and lean. Face-to-face body Japanese, whereas for Americans the mouth (e.g.,
orientation is associated with greater intimacy, as is a smiles, frowns, and so on) is a more influential facial
forward lean (Anderson, Guerrero, and Jones 2006). cue. When subjects were shown photographs of faces in
226 Chapter Seven
which competing emotions were displayed (e.g., happy were of close but different statuses, the lower-status
eyes, sad mouth), the eyes were the more influential cue person often strategically used touch as a means of
for Japanese, whereas the mouth was more influential “making a connection” with the higher-status person.
for Americans (Yuki, Maddux, and Masuda 2006). Status differences also determined the type of touch;
lower-status individuals were more likely to initiate
Critical Thinking handshakes, and higher-status individuals were more
likely to initiate somewhat more intimate touching,
Think about your nonverbal communication. In
such as placing a hand on another’s shoulder (Dibiase
instances where you and another person had signifi-
cant eye contact, what did the eye contact mean? As
and Gunnoe 2004).
you think about touch, what are the different kinds of What about culture? Differences surface in a
touch you do? What meanings do you ascribe to the number of interesting ways. For example, people
touch you give and the touch you receive? in colder climates use relatively larger distance and
hence relatively less physical contact when they com-
municate, whereas people in warmer climates prefer
Touch closer distances. Latin Americans are comfortable at
A review of the research on touch finds it to be ex- a closer range (have smaller personal space zones)
tremely important in human development, health, than North Americans. Middle Eastern, Latin Ameri-
and sexuality (Hatfield 1994). Touch is associated can, and southern European cultures can be consid-
with intimacy across many different types of rela- ered “high-contact cultures,” where people interact at
tionships, from close friends to romantic partners to closer distances and touch each other more in social
family members. Indeed, one might state that with- conversations than people from noncontact cultures,
out touch, intimacy is nearly impossible. When it is such as those of northern Europe, the United States,
welcome, touch of the face or torso is experienced as and Asia (Dibiase and Gunnoe 2004). In so-called
especially intimate (Anderson et al. 2006). high-contact cultures, the kind of touch used in greet-
Touch is the most basic of all senses; it contains ings is more intimate, often consisting of hugging or
receptors for pleasure and pain, hot and cold, and kissing, whereas a firm but more distant handshake is
rough and smooth. Touch is a life-giving force for in- an accepted greeting in noncontact cultures.
fants. If babies are not touched, they may fail to thrive Comparing women and men in the United States,
and may even die. We hold hands with small children Italy, and the Czech Republic, Rosemarie Dibiase
and those we love. and Jaime Gunnoe found that gender differences in
People vary in their responsiveness and receptive- touch varied across the three cultures. Men tended
ness to touch, with some people being more “touch to engage in more “hand touch” than women, and
avoidant” (Andersen, Andersen, and Lustig 1987; women engaged in more “non–hand touch” in all
Guerrero and Andersen 1991). For some, touch can three cultures, though the extent of gender difference
be experienced as a violation. A stranger or acquain- varied some in the three countries observed (Dibiase
tance may touch you in a way that is too familiar. and Gunnoe 2004).
Your date or partner may touch you in a manner you Touch can signify more than dominance; it often is
don’t like or want. Sexual harassment often consists a way to convey intimacy, immediacy, and emotional
of unwelcome touching. closeness. Touch may well be the most intimate form
Touching is a universal part of social interaction, of nonverbal communication. Touching seems to go
but it varies in both frequency and meaning across hand in hand with self-disclosure. Those who touch
cultures and between women and men (Dibiase and seem to self-disclose more; touch seems to be an im-
Gunnoe 2004). Often, touch has been taken to reflect portant factor in prompting others to talk more about
social dominance. Based largely and initially on re- themselves (Heslin and Alper 1983; Norton 1983).
search by Nancy Henley (1977) in which men were The amount of contact, from almost imperceptible
found to touch women more than women touched touches to “hanging all over” each other, helps differ-
men, the generalization was drawn that touch is often entiate lovers from strangers. How and where a person
a privilege that higher-status, more socially dominant is touched can suggest friendship, intimacy, love, or
individuals enjoy over lower-status, more subordinate sexual interest.
individuals. This generalization was further modified Sexual behavior relies above almost all else on
some by research that revealed that when individuals touch: the touching of self and others and the touching
of hands, faces, chests, arms, necks, legs, and genitals.
Sexual behavior is skin contact. In sexual interactions,
Gender Differences
touch takes precedence over sight, as we close our in Communication
eyes to caress, kiss, and enjoy sexual activity. We shut
our eyes to focus better on the sensations aroused by Compared with men’s nonverbal communication
touch; we shut out visual distractions to intensify the patterns, women smile more; express a wider range
tactile experience of sexuality. of emotions through their facial expressions; occupy,
The ability to interpret nonverbal communication claim, and control less space; and maintain more eye
correctly appears to be an important ingredient in suc- contact with others with whom they are interacting
cessful relationships. The statement “What’s wrong? (Borisoff and Merrill 1985; Lindsey 1997). In their
I can tell something is bothering you” reveals the abil- use of language and their styles of speaking, fur-
ity to read nonverbal clues, such as body language ther differences emerge (Lakoff 1975; Lindsey 1997;
or facial expressions. This ability is especially impor- Tannen 1990). Women use more qualifiers (“It’s kind
tant in ethnic groups and cultures that rely heavily on of cold out today”), use more tag questions (“It’s kind
nonverbal expression of feelings, such as Latino and of cold out today, don’t you think?”), use a wider vari-
Asian American cultures. Although the value placed ety of intensifiers (“It was awfully nice out yesterday;
on nonverbal expression may vary among groups and now it’s kind of cold out, don’t you think?”), and
cultures, the ability to communicate and understand speak in more polite and less insistent tones. Male
nonverbally remains important in all cultures. A com- speech contains fewer words for such things as color,
parative study of Chinese and American romantic re- texture, food, relationships, and feelings, but men
lationships, for example, found that shared nonverbal use more and harsher profanity (“It’s so damn cold
meanings were important for the success of relation- out!”) (Lindsey 1997). In cross-gender interaction,
ships in both cultures (Gao 1991). men talk more and interrupt women more than
women interrupt men. In same-gender conversation,
men disclose less personal information and restrict
themselves to safer topics, such as sports, politics, or
work (Lindsey 1997).
There are two things to note about such differ-
ences between female and male styles of both verbal
and nonverbal communication. The more male style
fits more with positions of dominance, whereas the
more female style is often found among people in
subordinate positions. At the same time, women’s
style of communicating is characterized more by
cooperation and consensus seeking; thus, it is also
situationally appropriate and advantageous to rela-
tionship building and maintenance (Lindsey 1997;
Tannen 1990). In light of these facts, researchers
differ in their interpretations of these gender patterns:
those who see women’s style more as artifacts of sub-
ordination versus those who see gender patterns as
© Paul Bradbury/Getty Images/OJO Images
reflecting difference.
Gender Differences in Partner

Communication
In addition to overall gender differences in communi-
cation noted earlier, researchers have identified several
gender differences in how heterosexual spouses or part-
We convey feelings via a variety of nonverbal means— ners communicate (Klinetob and Smith 1996; Noller
proximity, touch, and eye contact. and Fitzpatrick 1991; Thompson and Walker 1989).
228 Chapter Seven
First, wives tend to send clearer messages to their There continues to be a substantial amount of
husbands than their husbands send to them. Wives research examining premarital and marital communi-
are often more sensitive and responsive to their hus- cation. Researchers are finding significant correlations
bands’ messages both during conversation and during between the nature of communication and satisfac-
conflict. They are more likely to reply to either positive tion as well as differences in male versus female com-
messages (e.g., compliments) or negative messages munication patterns in marriage.
(e.g., criticisms) than are their husbands, who may
not reply at all. Premarital Communication Patterns
Second, wives tend to give more positive or negative
and Marital Satisfaction
messages; they tend to smile or laugh when they send
messages, and they send fewer clearly neutral messages. “Drop dead, you creep!” is hardly the thing some-
Husbands’ neutral responses make it more difficult for one would want to say when trying to resolve a
wives to decode what their partners are trying to say. disagreement in a dating relationship. But it may be
If a wife asks her husband if they should go to dinner an important clue as to whether such a couple should
or see a movie and he gives a neutral response, such as marry. Many couples who communicate poorly be-
“Whatever,” does he really not care, or is he pretending fore marriage are likely to continue the same way
he doesn’t care to avoid possible conflict? after marriage, and the result can be disastrous for
Third, although communication differences in future marital happiness. Researchers have found
arguments between husbands and wives are usually that how well a couple communicates before mar-
small, they nevertheless follow a typical pattern. riage can be an important predictor of later marital
Wives tend to set the emotional tone of an argument. satisfaction (Cate and Lloyd 1992). If communica-
They escalate conflict with negative verbal and non- tion is poor before marriage, it is not likely to signifi-
verbal messages (“You’re not even listening to me!”) cantly improve after marriage—at least not without
or deescalate arguments by setting an atmosphere of a good deal of effort and help. On the other hand,
agreement (“I understand your feelings”). Husbands’ self-disclosure—the revelation of our own deeply per-
inputs are less important in setting the climate for sonal information—before or soon after marriage
resolving or escalating conflicts. Wives tend to use is related to relationship satisfaction later. Talking
emotional appeals more than husbands, who tend to about your deepest feelings and revealing yourself to
reason, seek conciliation, and find ways to postpone your partner builds bonds of trust that help cement
or end an argument. A wife is more likely to ask, a marriage.
“Don’t you love me?,” whereas a husband is more Whether a couple’s interactions are basically nega-
likely to say, “Be reasonable.” tive or positive can also predict later marital satis-
faction. In a notable experiment by John Markham
(1979), 14 premarital couples were evaluated using
Communication Patterns “table talk,” sitting around a table and simply engag-
ing in conversation. Each couple talked about vari-
in Marriage ous topics. Using an electronic device, each partner
electronically recorded whether the message was pos-
Communication occupies an important place in itive or negative. Markham found that the negativity
marriage. Research in the United States as well as in or positivity of the couple’s communication pattern
Europe (e.g., Italy), Asia (Taiwan), and Latin America barely affected their marital satisfaction during their
(Brazil) indicates that partners’ satisfaction with rela- first year. This protective quality of the first year is
tionships is affected by the quality of their communi- known as the honeymoon effect—which means that
cation (Christensen et al. 2006). When couples have you can say almost anything during the first year,
communication problems, they often fear that their and it will not seriously affect marriage (Huston,
marriages are seriously flawed. In addition, negative McHale, and Crouter 1986). But after the first year,
communication is associated with both less relation- couples with negative premarital communication
ship satisfaction and greater instability. As shown in patterns were less satisfied than those with positive
a subsequent section, one of the most common com- communication patterns. A later study (Julien, Mark-
plaints of couples seeking therapy is about their com- man, and Lindahl 1989) found that those premarital
munication problems (Burleson and Denton 1997). couples who responded more to each other’s positive
communication than to each other’s negative com- haviors than did couples with no prior cohabitation
munication were more satisfied in marriage four experience (Cohan and Kleinbaum 2002).
years later.
Marital Communication Patterns
Cohabitation and Later Marital and Satisfaction
Communication
Researchers have found a number of patterns that
Researchers have revealed that cohabitation has distinguish the communication patterns in satisfied
an effect on the outcome of marriage. Specifically, and dissatisfied marriages (Gottman 1995; Hendrick
couples who live together before marrying are more 1981; Noller and Fitzpatrick 1991; Schaap, Buunk, and
likely to separate and divorce than couples who Kerkstra 1988). The following characteristics tend to
don’t live together before marriage. That may seem be found among couples in satisfying marriages:
counterintuitive. Wouldn’t couples who live together
first find it easier to adjust to marriage? Doesn’t ● Willingness to accept conflict but to engage in con-
cohabitation weed out the unsuccessful matches flict in nondestructive ways.
before marriage? In Chapter 9, we consider the range ● Less frequent conflict and less time spent in con-
of explanations for this cohabitation effect. Here, we flict. Both satisfied and unsatisfied couples, how-
simply look at how communication patterns might ever, experience conflicts about the same topics,
contribute to later marital failure. especially about communication, sex, and person-
Catherine Cohan and Stacey Kleinbaum (2002) hy- ality characteristics.
pothesized that spouses who live together before marry- ● The ability to disclose or reveal private thoughts
ing display more negative problem-solving and support and feelings, especially positive ones, to a partner.
behavior compared with their counterparts who marry Dissatisfied spouses tend to disclose mostly nega-
without first living together. Why would cohabitation tive thoughts to their partners.
lead to poorer marital communication? Cohan and ● Expression by both partners of equal levels of
Kleinbaum suggest three possible reasons: affection, such as tenderness, words of love, and
touch.
1. Couples who live together come from backgrounds ● More time spent talking, discussing personal topics,
that may predispose them to poorer communica- and expressing feelings in positive ways.
tion abilities. Compared with couples who don’t ● The ability to encode (send) verbal and non-
cohabit, cohabitants tend to be younger, less re- verbal messages accurately and to decode (under-
ligious, and more likely to come from divorced stand) such messages accurately. This is especially
homes. Cohan and Kleinbaum point out that this
translates into their being less mature, less tradi-
tional, and less likely to have had good parental
role models for effective communication.
2. People who cohabit may be more accepting of di-
vorce and less committed to marriage. Thus, they
may expend less effort or energy developing good
marital communication skills because they are less
sure that they will stay married.
3. Cohabitation is associated with factors such as al-
cohol use, infidelity, and lower marital satisfaction,
which in turn are correlated with less effective com-
munication.
© Queerstock, Inc./Alamy
In studying 92 couples who were in their first two

years of marriage, Cohan and Kleinbaum found that
premarital cohabitation was associated with poorer
marital communication. Couples with one or more
cohabitation experiences displayed poorer, more Touching the face of one’s partner is an example of especially
divisive, and more destructive communication be- intimate nonverbal communication.
230 Chapter Seven
important for husbands. Unhappy partners may As the preceding illustrates, in seeking change, the
actually decode the messages of strangers more person making the demand is in a potentially vul-
accurately than those from their partners. nerable, less powerful position than the person with-
drawing from the interaction. The latter can choose to
Additionally, the effects of communication between change or not. By withdrawing, he or she maintains
spouses on couples’ satisfaction with their marriages the status quo. Withdrawal has other consequences.
can be found in many cultures, though not necessarily Just as it keeps the conflict from escalating, it may pre-
to the same extent that it does among marriages in the vent the resolution of the conflict by curtailing needed
United States. Given the premium placed on intimacy communication and necessary relationship adjust-
and more romantic conceptualizations of love, mar- ment (Sagrestano, Heavey, and Christensen 1999).
riages in the United States are especially susceptible T h e d e m a n d – w i t h d r aw p a t t e r n i s c o m -
to the effects of positive and negative communica- mon in the United States and cross-culturally
tion on their sense of marital well-being. However, (Christensen et al. 2006). Although most often
even in cultures where marriage is more “practical” studied within heterosexual couples, it has also
and arranged, based on matching partners on a host been observed in parent–child conflict among
of characteristics (e.g., Pakistan), marital satisfaction parents and their adolescents (Caughlin and
is affected by the nature of marital communication Malis 2004). In both versions of parent–child
(Rehman and Holtzworth-Munroe 2006). demand–withdraw (i.e., instances of parents demand-
ing and adolescents withdrawing and instances of
adolescents demanding and parents withdrawing),
Demand–Withdraw Communication
both adolescents’ and parents’ relationship satisfac-
One prominent type of familial communication, espe- tion can be negatively affected.
cially evident in conflict communication, is referred to Research on heterosexual couples shows a tendency
as demand–withdraw communication—a pattern in for the demand–withdraw pattern to be associated
which one person makes an effort to engage the other with gender. As in the earlier illustration, more often,
person in a discussion of some issue of importance. women “demand” and men “withdraw.” Researchers
The one raising the issue may criticize, complain, or
suggest a need for change in the other’s behavior or in
the relationship. The other party, in response to such
overtures, withdraws by either leaving the discussion,
failing to reply, or changing the subject (Klinetob and
Smith 1996).
In many ways, the demand–withdraw pattern is an
understandable outcome of differences in what each
partner in a relationship wants. One partner, often
the wife in heterosexual marriages, wants something
different from the status quo. She is then left with a
choice between doing nothing and confronting her
husband. If she resists or avoids bringing the topic
up, nothing will change, a situation she may deem
© George Doyle/Getty Images/Stockbyte
unacceptable. Instead, she raises the subject, voices her

complaint, and presses for change. The other partner,
more often the husband in heterosexual marriages,
satisfied with the way things are (or otherwise not in-
terested in the change his partner wishes to discuss),
wants no change. By agreeing to discuss the subject,
there is a chance that tension will rise and conflict will
result. He also runs the risk of having to ultimately The demand–withdraw style of communication is a
agree to change in the way his wife desires. Wanting common pattern among heterosexual couples, in which
neither to argue nor to agree with his partner’s wishes, typically the woman initiates conversation about an issue
he withdraws. and the man withdraws.
have considered a variety of explanations for this more Although the demand–withdraw pattern is fairly
common gender pattern, including a more biologi- common, it is neither a healthy nor an effective style of
cally based explanation. Men and women may have communication and conflict resolution. It is associated
different physiological responses to conflict, and these with less marital satisfaction and higher likelihood
may help produce the familiar male withdrawal that of relationship failure or divorce and may even be a
is part of the female demand–male withdraw pattern predictor of violence within the couple relationship,
of communication. With greater tolerance for physi- especially among couples with high levels of husband
ological arousal, women can maintain the kinds of demand–wife withdraw (Sagrestano et al. 1999). Psy-
high levels of engagement that conflict contains. John chologist John Gottman and colleagues contend that
Gottman and Robert Levenson (1992) reported that the demand–withdraw pattern is “consistently charac-
compared to women, men show different physiologi- teristic of ailing marriages” (Gottman et al. 2002, in
cal reactions—more rapid heartbeat, quickened respi- Christensen et al. 2006).
ration, and the release of higher levels of epinephrine
in their endocrine systems—to disagreements. To
Sexual Communication
men, this arousal is highly unpleasant; thus, they act
to avoid it by withdrawing from the conflict. With- To have a satisfying sexual relationship, a couple must
drawal may be a means of avoiding these reactions be able to communicate effectively with each other
(Gottman and Levenson 1992; Levenson, Carstensen, about expectations, needs, attitudes, and preferences
and Gottman 1994). (Regan 2003). Both the frequency with which couples
Other researchers have looked at gender socializa- engage in sexual relations and the quality of their in-
tion and at the nature of heterosexual relationships. volvement depend on such communication.
Females are socialized to seek greater connectedness As addressed in Chapter 5, among heterosexuals, in
with others, whereas males to seek greater indepen- both married and cohabiting relationships, women and
dence and autonomy. Theoretically, this could mo- men often follow sexual scripts that leave the initiation
tivate women to desire greater closeness, which in of sex (i.e., the communication of desire and interest)
turn could put them in the position of making de- to men, with women then in a position of accepting
mands of male partners. Relationship dynamics are or refusing men’s overtures. Reviewing the literature
also important. Women are more often the partners on sexual communication, Pamela Regan observes that
seeking to initiate some sort of change in the relation- regardless of who takes the role of initiating, the efforts
ship, whether that be increased intimacy, increased are usually met with positive responses. Both attempts
male participation in housework, or increased male to initiate and positive responses are rarely communi-
involvement in child care (Christensen and Heavey cated explicitly and verbally (Regan 2003, 84):
1993; Christensen et al. 2006).
A person who desires sexual activity might turn on
Researchers who have explored similarities and dif-
the radio to a romantic soft rock station, pour his or
ferences between heterosexual and same-sex couples
her partner a glass of wine, and glance suggestively
have cast additional light on the gendered pattern of
in the direction of the bedroom. The partner . . . might
demand–withdraw communication. Psychologists
smile, put down his or her book, and engage in other
Sondra Solomon, Esther Rothblum, and Kimberly
nonverbal behaviors that continue the sexual interac-
Balsam compared same-sex couples and heterosexual
tion without explicitly acknowledging acceptance.
couples on a number of relationship issues, includ-
ing what they called “relationship maintenance be- Interestingly, lack of interest or refusal of sexual
havior.” Among married heterosexual couples, women initiations is more likely to be communicated directly
indicated that they were more likely than their hus- and verbally (e.g., “Not tonight, I have a lot of work to
bands to “begin to talk about what is troubling us do”). By framing refusal in terms of some kind of ac-
when there is tension” and “to sense that the other count, the refusing partner allows the rejected partner
is disturbed about something.” Married heterosexual to save face (Regan 2003).
men reported themselves as more likely to keep their Effective sexual communication may be difficult,
feelings to themselves. Among same-sex couples, these but it is important if couples hope to construct and
relationship maintenance behaviors were more equally keep mutually satisfying sexual relationships. We must
displayed by both partners (Solomon, Rothblum, and trust our partner enough to express our feelings about
Balsam 2005). sexual needs, desires, and dislikes, and we must be
232 Chapter Seven
able to hear the same from our partner without feeling psychologists a list of topics and asked them to provide
judgmental or defensive (Regan 2003). their best guess as to how difficult each topic is for cou-
ples to discuss and resolve (from 1 ! extremely easy to
5 ! extremely difficult). The list consisted of 24 topics,
Other Problems generated from a sample of 37 couples who were asked
in Communication to identify two unresolved issues in their relationships.
The 10 topics to which the psychologists assigned the
Studies suggest that poor communication skills pre- highest “difficulty scores” are listed in Table 7.1.
cede the onset of marital problems (Gottman 1994; Other familiar relationship trouble spots and their
Markman 1981; Markman et al. 1987). Even family assigned ratings include child-rearing issues (3.42), fi-
violence has been seen by some as the consequence of nances (3.42), lack of listening (3.08), household tasks
deficiencies in the ability to communicate (Burleson (2.33), and not showing sufficient appreciation (2.25).
and Denton 1997). In this section, we consider some Although the scores demonstrate differences in the de-
additional sources of communication difficulties and gree of sensitivity of different marital issues, these dif-
suggest ways to develop better communication. ferences do not, themselves, appear to determine how
couples communicate about them (Sanford 2003).
Topic-Related Difficulty
Some communication problems are topic dependent
Barriers to Effective Communication
more than individual or relationship based. That is, We can learn to communicate, but it is not always
some topics are more difficult for couples to talk about. easy. Traditional male gender roles, for example, work
As Keith Sanford (2003, 98) states, “It would seem easier against the idea of expressing feelings. Traditional mas-
to resolve a disagreement about what to do on a Friday culinity calls for men to be strong and silent, to ride
night than a disagreement about whether one spouse off into the sunset alone. If men talk, they talk about
is having an affair.” If some topics are more difficult things—cars, politics, sports, work, or money—but
to discuss than others, couples are likely to display not about feelings. In addition, both men and women
poorer communication when discussing those topics. may have personal reasons for not expressing their
In an attempt to determine the difficulty of differ- feelings. They may have strong feelings of inadequacy:
ent topics, Sanford gave a sample of 12 licensed PhD “If you really knew what I was like, you wouldn’t like
Table 7.1 Ten Topics That Are Most Difficult for Couples to Discuss
Difficulty
Topic Score*
Relationship doubts (possibility of divorce) 4.58
Disrespectful behavior (lying, rudeness) 4.50
Extramarital intimacy boundary issues (use of pornography, jealousy) 4.42
Excessive or inappropriate display of anger (yelling, attacking) 4.25
Sexual interaction 4.17
Lack of communication (refusal to talk) 4.00
In-laws and extended family 3.83
Confusing, erratic, emotional behavior 3.75
Criticism 3.58
Poor communication skills (being unclear or hard to understand) 3.46
*1 ! extremely easy; 5 ! extremely difficult.
themselves. As feelings, however, they need to be
felt, whether they are warm or cold, pleasurable
or painful. They do not necessarily need to be
acted on or expressed. It is the acting out that
holds the potential for problems or hurt.
© Jeremy Woodhouse/Getty Images/Blend Images
Problems in Self-Disclosure
Self-disclosure creates the environment for mu-
tual understanding (Derlega et al. 1993). We live
much of our lives playing roles—as student and
worker, husband or wife, or son or daughter. We
live and act these roles conventionally. They do
not necessarily reflect our deepest selves. If we
pretend that we are only these roles and ignore
How partners express and handle conflict verbally, as well
our deepest selves, we have taken the path toward
as nonverbally, says much about the direction in which the
relationship is heading. loneliness and isolation. We may reach a point at
which we no longer know who we are. In the process
of revealing ourselves to others, we discover who we
are. In the process of our sharing, others share them-
me.” They may feel ashamed of or guilty about their
selves with us. Self-disclosure is reciprocal.
feelings: “Sometimes I feel attracted to other people,
and it makes me feel guilty because I should only be
attracted to you.” They may feel vulnerable: “If I told How Much Openness?
you my real feelings, you might hurt me.” They may be Can too much openness and honesty be harmful to
frightened of their feelings: “If I expressed my anger, a relationship? How much should intimates reveal
it would destroy you.” Finally, people may not com- to each other? Some studies suggest that less marital
municate because they are fearful that their feelings satisfaction results if partners have too little or too much
and desires will create conflict: “If I told you how I felt, disclosure; a happy medium offers security, stability,
you would get angry.” and safety. But a review of studies on the relation-
ship between communication and marital satisfaction
finds that the greater the self-disclosure, the greater the
Obstacles to Self-Awareness marital satisfaction, provided that the couple is highly
committed to the relationship and willing to take the
Before we can communicate with others, we must
risks of high levels of intimacy. High self-disclosure
first know how we feel. Although feelings are valuable
can be a highly charged undertaking.
guides for actions, we often place obstacles in the way
Research by Brant Burleson and Wayne Den-
of expressing them. First, we suppress “unacceptable”
ton (1997) suggests that the relationship between
feelings, especially feelings such as anger, hurt, and
communication skill and marital success and sat-
jealousy. After a while, we may not even consciously
isfaction is “quite complex.” In a study of 60 cou-
experience them. Second, we deny our feelings. If we
ples, the researchers explored the importance of
are feeling hurt and our partner looks at our pained ex-
four communication skills in determining marital
pression and asks us what we’re feeling, we may reply,
satisfaction:
“Nothing.” We may actually feel nothing because we
have anesthetized our feelings. Third, we project our ● Communication effectiveness. Producing messages
feelings. Instead of recognizing that we are jealous, we that have their intended effect
may accuse our partner of being jealous; instead of ● Perceptual accuracy. Correctly understanding the in-
feeling hurt, we may say that our partner is hurt. tentions underlying a message
Becoming aware of ourselves requires us to become ● Predictive accuracy. Accurately anticipating the
aware of our feelings. Perhaps the first step toward effect of the message on another
this self-awareness is realizing that feelings are simply ● Interpersonal cognitive complexity. The capacity to
emotional states—they are neither good nor bad in process social information
234 Chapter Seven
Second, we must believe that we are able to pre-
dict how the person will behave. If we are married
or in a committed relationship, we trust that our
© Reggie Casagrande/Getty Images/Photographer’s Choice RF
partner will not do something that will hurt us, such

as having an affair. If we discover that our partner
is involved in an affair, we often speak of our trust
being violated or destroyed. If trust is destroyed in
this case, it is because the predictability of sexual
exclusiveness is no longer there.
Third, the person must have other acceptable
options available to him or her. If we were ma-
rooned on a desert island alone with our partner,
he or she would have no choice but to be sexu-
ally monogamous. But if a third person who was
sexually attractive to our partner swam ashore a
A pivotal aspect of effective communication, self-disclosure year later, then our partner would have an alterna-
is reciprocal.
tive. Our partner would then have a choice of being
sexually exclusive or nonexclusive; his or her behavior
Prior research had indicated that each of the preced- would then be evidence of trustworthiness—or the
ing skills was important in differentiating satisfied lack of it.
from dissatisfied couples or nondistressed from dis-
tressed couples. On the basis of their research, Bur-
leson and Denton suggest that communication skill
may not adequately explain levels of distress or dis- Matter of Fact The happiest couples are those
satisfaction. The intentions and feelings being com- who balance autonomy with intimacy and negotiate
municated were more important factors separating personal and couple boundaries through supportive
communication (Scarf 1995).
distressed from nondistressed couples. Spouses in
distressed couples had “more negative intentions”
toward each other. “The negative communication
behaviors frequently observed in distressed spouses Trust is critical to communication in close relation-
may result more from ill will than poor skill” (Bur- ships for two reasons (Book et al. 1980). First, the
leson and Denton 1997, 897). Burleson and Den- degree to which you trust a person influences the way
ton also observe that good communication skills you are likely to interpret ambiguous or unexpected
can worsen marital relationships when spouses have messages. If your partner says that he or she wants to
“negative intentions toward one another” (900). study alone tonight, you are likely to take the state-
ment at face value if you have a high trust level. But
“Can I Trust You?” if you have a low trust level, you may believe your
When we talk about intimate relationships, among partner is going to meet someone else while you are
the words that most often pop up are love and trust. studying in the library. Second, the degree to which
As shown in the discussion of love in Chapter 5, trust we trust someone influences the extent of our self-
is an important part of love. But what is trust? Trust is disclosure. Revealing our inner selves—which is vital
the belief in the reliability and integrity of a person. to closeness—makes a person vulnerable and thus re-
When a person says, “Trust me,” he or she is ask- quires trust. A person will not self-disclose if he or she
ing for something that does not easily occur. For trust believes that the information may be misused—for
to develop, three conditions must exist (Book et al. example, by a partner who resorts to mocking behav-
1980). First, a relationship has to exist and have the ior or revealing a secret.
likelihood of continuing. We generally do not trust Trust in personal relationships has both a behav-
strangers or people we have just met, especially with ioral and a motivational component (Book et al.
information that makes us vulnerable, such as our 1980). The behavioral component refers to the prob-
sexual anxieties. We trust people with whom we have ability that a person will act in a trustworthy manner.
a significant relationship. The motivational component refers to the reasons a
person engages in trustworthy actions. Whereas Figure 7.1 Communication Loop
the behavioral element is important in all types
In successful communication, feedback between the sender and the
of relationships, the motivational element is receiver ensures that both understand (or are trying to understand)
important in close relationships. One has to be what is being communicated. For communication to be clear, the
trustworthy for the “right” reasons. You may not message and the intent behind the message must be congruent.
care why your mechanic is trustworthy as long Nonverbal and verbal components must also support the intended
as he or she charges you fairly for repairing your message. Verbal aspects of communication include not only language
engine, but you do care why your partner is trust- and word choice but also characteristics such as tone, volume, pitch,
worthy. For example, you want your partner to be rate, and periods of silence.
sexually exclusive to you because he or she loves ions, clarification)
you or is attracted to you. Being faithful because (Quest
of duty or because your partner can’t find anyone Feedback
better is the wrong motivation. Disagreements
about the motivational bases for trust are often Nonverbal Verbal
a source of conflict. “I want you because you love Proximity Language
Eye contact Word choice
me, not because you need me” or “You don’t re- Touching Tone
ally love me; you’re just saying that because you Volume
Pitch
want sex” are typical examples of conflict about Rate
motivation. Silence
Message
The Importance of Feedback Sender Receiver
Intent
Self-disclosure is reciprocal. If we self-disclose, we
expect our partner to self-disclose as well. As we
self-disclose, we build trust; as we withhold self-
disclosure, we erode trust. To withhold ourselves
is to imply that we don’t trust the other person,
and if we don’t, he or she will not trust us.
A critical element in communication is
feedback, the ongoing process in which partici- Feedback
pants and their messages create a given result
(Res
tatem ck)
and are subsequently modified by the result (see ent, accuracy che
Figure 7.1). If someone self-discloses to us, we
need to respond to his or her self-disclosure. The
● You can acknowledge your partner’s feelings as
purpose of feedback is to provide constructive infor-
being valid (rather than right or wrong) and dis-
mation to increase self-awareness of the consequences
close how you feel in response to his or her state-
of our behaviors toward each other.
ment. This acknowledgment and response is
If your partner discloses to you his or her doubts
constructive feedback. It may or may not remove
about your relationship, for example, you can respond
your partner’s doubts, but it is at least constructive
in a number of ways:
in that it opens the possibility for change, whereas
● You can remain silent. Silence, however, is generally silence, anger, and indifference do not.
a negative response, perhaps as powerful as saying
Some guidelines, developed by David Johnston for
outright that you do not want your partner to self-
the Minnesota Peer Program, may help you engage in
disclose this type of information.
dialogue and feedback with your partner:
● You can respond angrily, which may convey the
message to your partner that self-disclosing will 1. Focus on “I” statements. An “I” statement is a state-
lead to arguments rather than understanding and ment about your feelings: “I feel annoyed when you
possible change. leave your dirty dishes on the living room floor.”
● You can remain indifferent, responding nei- “You” statements tell another person how he or she
ther negatively nor positively to your partner’s is, feels, or thinks: “You are so irresponsible. You’re
self-disclosure. always leaving your dirty dishes on the living room
236 Chapter Seven
floor.” “You” statements are often blaming or accu- freedom to decide on the basis of his or her own
satory. Because “I” messages don’t carry blame, the perceptions and goals. “You need to put away your
recipient is less likely to be defensive or resentful. dishes immediately after you are done with them”
2. Focus on behavior rather than the person. If you focus is advice. To offer alternatives instead, you might
on a person’s behavior rather than on the person, say, “Having to walk around your dirty dishes both-
you are more likely to secure change. A person can ers me. Maybe you could put them away after you
change behaviors but not himself or herself. If you finish eating, clean them up before I get home, or
want your partner to wash his or her dirty dishes, eat in the kitchen. What do you think?”
say, “I would like you to wash your dirty dishes; it 6. Focus on the amount that the recipient can process.
bothers me when I see them gathering mold on Don’t overload your partner with your response.
the living room floor.” This statement focuses on Your partner’s disclosure may touch deep, pent-up
behavior that can be changed. If you say, “You are feelings in you, but he or she may not be able to
such a slob; you never clean up after yourself,” then comprehend all that you say. If you respond to your
you are attacking the person. He or she is likely to partner’s revelation of doubts by listing all doubts
respond defensively: “I am not a slob. Talk about you have ever experienced about yourself, your re-
slobs, how about when you left your clothes lying lationship, and relationships in general, you may
in the bathroom for a week?” overwhelm your partner.
3. Focus on observations rather than inferences or judg- 7. Focus on responding at an appropriate time and place.
ments. Focus your feedback on what you actually Choose a time when you are not likely to be inter-
observe rather than on what you think the behavior rupted. Turn the television off and don’t answer
means. “There is a towering pile of your dishes in your phone. In addition, choose a time that is
the living room” is an observation. “You don’t really relatively stress free. Talking about something of
care about how I feel because you are always leaving great importance just before an exam or a busi-
your dirty dishes around the house” is an inference ness meeting is likely to sabotage any attempt at
that a partner’s dirty dishes indicate a lack of regard. communication. Finally, choose a place that will
The inference moves the discussion from the dishes provide privacy; don’t start an important conversa-
to the partner’s caring. The question “What kind tion if you are worried about people overhearing or
of person would leave dirty dishes for me to clean interrupting you. A dorm cafeteria at lunchtime, a
up?” implies a judgment: only a morally depraved kitchen teeming with kids, or a car full of friends
person would leave dirty dishes around. are all inappropriate places.
4. Focus on observations based on a continuum. Behav-
iors fall on a continuum. Your partner doesn’t
always do a particular thing. When you say that he
or she does something sometimes or even most of
Power, Conflict,
the time, you are measuring behavior. If you say and Intimacy
that your partner always does something, you are
distorting reality. For example, there were probably Although we may find it unusual to think about fam-
times (however rare) when your partner picked ily life in these terms, day-to-day family life is highly
up the dirty dishes. “Last week I picked up your politicized. By that we mean that the politics of family
dirty dishes three times” is a measured statement. life—who has more power, who makes the decisions,
“I always pick up your dirty dishes” is an exag- and who does what—are complex and can be a source
geration that will probably provoke a hostile of conflict between spouses or intimate partners. Like
response. other groups, families possess structures of power. As
5. Focus on sharing ideas or offering alternatives rather used here, power is the ability or potential ability to
than giving advice. No one likes being told what influence another person or group, to get people to do
to do. Unsolicited advice often produces anger or what you want them to do, whether they want to or
resentment because advice implies that you know not. Often, we are unaware of the power aspects of our
more about what a person needs to do than the intimate relationships. We may even deny the exis-
other person does. Advice implies a lack of free- tence of power differences because we want to believe
dom or respect. By sharing ideas and offering al- that intimate relationships are based on love alone.
ternatives, however, you give the other person the Furthermore, the exercise of power is often subtle.
When we think of power, we tend to think of coercion Sources of Marital Power
or force; as we show here, however, power in relation-
ships between spouses or intimate partners takes many Traditionally, husbands have held authority over their
forms and is often experienced as neither coercion nor wives. In Christianity, the subordination of wives to
force. A final reason we are not always aware of power their husbands has its basis in the New Testament.
is that power is not constantly exercised. It comes into Paul (Colossians 3:18–19) states, “Wives, submit
play only when an issue is important to both people yourselves unto your husbands, as unto the Lord.”
and they have conflicting goals. Such teachings reflected the dominant themes of an-
As a concept, power in marital and other relation- cient Greece and Rome. Western society continued to
ships has been said to consist of power bases, pro- support wifely subordination to husbands. English
cesses, and outcomes. Power bases are the economic common law stated, “The husband and wife are as
and personal assets (such as income, economic in- one and that one is the husband.” A woman assumed
dependence, commitment, and both physical and her husband’s identity, taking his last name on mar-
psychological aggression) that make up the source of riage and living in his house.
one partner’s control over the other. Power processes The U.S. courts formally institutionalized these
are the “interactional techniques” or methods that power relationships. The law, for example, supported
partners or spouses use to try to gain control over the the traditional division of labor in many states by mak-
relationship, the partner, or both, such as persuasion, ing the husband legally responsible for supporting the
problem solving, or demandingness. Power outcomes family and the wife legally responsible for maintain-
can be observed in such things as who has the final ing the house and rearing the children. She was legally
say and determines—or potentially could determine required to follow her husband if he moved; if she did
and control—the outcome of attempted decision not, she was considered to have deserted him. But if
making (Byrne, Carr, and Clark 2004; Sagrestano she moved and her husband refused to move with
et al. 1999). her, she was also considered to have deserted him
(Leonard and Elias 1990).
Legal and social support for the husband’s control
Power and Intimacy of the family declined through most of the twentieth
The problem with power imbalances and the blatant century, especially the latter decades. Still, even into
use of power is the negative effects they have on inti- the 1970s, judicial discourse reflected an assumption
macy. If partners are not equal, self-disclosure may be of a “unitary spousal identity” wherein the husband
inhibited, especially if the powerful person believes and wife were one, represented by the husband.
that his or her power will be lessened by sharing Ultimately, this was replaced by a more egalitarian
feelings (Glazer-Malbin 1975). Genuine intimacy model in which marriage was a partnership between
appears to require equality in power relationships. equals, each of whom retained an independent legal
Decision making in the happiest marriages seems existence, enjoyed the same rights, and held mutual
to be based not on coercion or tit for tat but on car- responsibilities (Mason, Fine, and Carnochan, 2001).
ing, mutuality, and respect for each other. Women or Especially through employment and wage earning,
men who feel vulnerable to their mates may with- wives have gained more power in the family, increas-
hold feelings or pretend to feel what they do not. ing their influence in deciding such matters as family
Unequal power in marriage may encourage power size and how money is spent.
politics. Each partner may struggle with the other to Sociologist Jessie Bernard (1982) drew an im-
keep or gain power. portant distinction between authority and power in
It is not easy to change unequal power relation- marriage. Authority is based in law, but power can be
ships after they become embedded in the overall derived from personality. A strong, dominant woman
structure of a relationship, yet they can be changed. may, in her relationship, be as likely to exercise power
Talking, understanding, and negotiating are the best over a more passive man as vice versa simply through
approaches. Still, in attempting changes, a person may the force of personality and temperament.
risk estrangement or the breakup of a relationship. Among dating couples, power imbalances are
He or she must weigh the possible gains against the common, whether they are measured by who makes
possible losses in deciding whether change is worth decisions or who is perceived to be more powerful.
the risk. Such imbalances tend to favor males over females.
238 Chapter Seven
An interesting gender pattern finds men perceiving on gender, age, or relationship. Power often shifts
themselves to be more powerful in decision making, from person to person, depending on the issue.
whereas women are more likely to characterize deci-
sion making as equal (Sprecher and Felmlee 1997).
The relationship among gender, power, and vio-
lence is complex. Although some research suggests
Explanations
that men’s violence is an expression of men’s power of Marital Power
over their wives (and of women’s powerlessness),
research also asserts that violence may be used by Relative love and need theory explains power in
men who themselves feel powerless. Framed in this terms of the individual’s involvement and needs in
way, violence can be a method through which men the relationship. Each partner brings certain resources,
who lack power or have a need for power attempt feelings, and needs to a relationship. Each may be seen
to control their wives. Even the threat of violence as exchanging love, companionship, money, help, and
can be an assertion of power because it may intimi- status with the other. What each gives and receives,
date women into complying with men’s wishes even however, may not be equal. One partner may be gain-
against their own (Kimmel 2008; Levitt, Swanger, and ing more from the relationship than the other. The
Butler 2008; Sagrestano et al. 1999). person gaining the most from the relationship is the
If we want to see how power works in marriage, we most dependent.
need to look beneath gender stereotypes and avoid Love itself is a major power resource in a relation-
overgeneralizations. Women have considerable power ship. Those who love equally are likely to share power
in marriage, although they often feel that they have equally (Safilios-Rothschild 1976). Such couples are
less than they actually do. They may fail to recognize likely to make decisions according to referent, expert,
the extent of their power; because cultural norms tra- and legitimate power.
ditionally put power in the hands of their husbands,
women may look at norms rather than at their own
Principle of Least Interest
behavior, failing to recognize the degree to which they
wield power. She may feel that her husband holds the Akin to relative love and need as a way of looking at
power in the relationship because she believes that power is the principle of least interest. Sociologist
he is supposed to be dominant. Similarly, women Willard Waller (Waller and Hill 1951) coined this term
who may believe their relationships to be egalitar- to describe the situation in which the partner with the
ian nevertheless may exercise control over domains least interest in continuing a relationship enjoys the
of day-to-day life. For example, linguist Alexandra most power in it.
Johnston illustrated the process of gatekeeping in her Quarreling couples may unconsciously use the
analysis of “manager–helper interactions” between a principle of least interest to their advantage. The less
couple she calls Kathy and Sam in their distribution involved partner may threaten to leave as leverage in
of caregiving responsibility for their daughter Kira. an argument: “All right, if you don’t do it my way,
Despite their commitment to and endorsement of I’m going.” The threat may be extremely powerful in
shared parenting, their roles are not as equal as they coercing a dependent partner. It may have little effect,
believe or would like. Although they spend equal however, if it comes from the dependent partner be-
amounts of time and participate in the same care- cause he or she has too much to lose to be persuasive.
giving tasks, Kathy is the primary decision maker for Knowing this, the less involved partner can easily call
many of the issues concerning the care of two-year-old the other’s bluff.
Kira (Johnston 2007). Finally, husbands may believe In their study of 101 heterosexual dating couples,
that they have more power in a relationship than they sociologists Susan Sprecher and Diane Felmlee found
actually do because they see only traditional norms that Waller’s principle of least interest described the
and expectations. power imbalances in their sample couples. They found
Power is not a simple phenomenon. Researchers that the partners who perceived themselves to be more
generally agree that family power is a dynamic, multi- emotionally involved and invested in the relationship
dimensional process (Szinovacz 1987). Generally, no also perceived themselves to have less power than
single individual is always the most powerful person in their partners. This pattern held true for both women
every aspect of the family. Nor is power always based and men, but men were significantly more likely
to perceive themselves as the less involved partner. power. To Lukes, power may be overt, latent, or hidden.
Women’s perceptions echoed men’s, as they saw their This is nicely depicted in the following example:
male partners as less invested in their relationships
If a husband and wife struggle over domestic labor,
than they perceived themselves to be (Sprecher and
and the husband successfully resists the greater par-
Felmlee 1997).
ticipation the wife seeks, he has exercised overt power.
If his wife then accepts the situation and avoids rais-
Resource Theory of Power ing the issue again out of fear of renewed conflict,
he has exercised latent power. But . . . if this issue is
In 1960, sociologists Robert Blood and Donald Wolfe
never raised . . . because the wife accepts it as her duty
studied the marital decision-making patterns as re-
to bear the domestic labor burden even when she is
vealed by their sample of 900 wives. Using “final say”
employed outside the home . . . the husband has ben-
in decision making as an indicator of relative power,
efited from the hidden power in prevailing gendered
Blood and Wolfe inquired about a variety of decisions
practices and ideology. (Tichenor 2005a, 194)
(e.g., whether the wife should be employed, what type
of car to buy, and where to live) and who “ultimately” Despite continuing disagreement among research-
decided what couples should do. They noted that men ers about how to measure marital power, the most
tended to have more of such decision-making power commonly used method still relies on determining
and attributed this to their being the sole or larger who has “final say” in decision making (Amato et al.
source of the financial resources on which couples 2007).
depended. They further observed that as wives’ share
of resources increased, so did their roles in decision Rethinking Family Power:
making (Blood and Wolfe 1960).
Feminist Contributions
This resource theory of power has been met with
both criticism and some empirical support. By focus- Even though women have considerable power in
ing so narrowly on resources, the theory overlooks marriages and families, it would be a serious mistake
other sources of gendered power. Specifically, it fails to overlook the inequalities between husbands and
to explain the power that many men continue to wives. As feminist scholars have pointed out, major
enjoy when they are outearned by their wives or why aspects of contemporary marriage point to important
a woman’s power doesn’t automatically increase when areas in which women are clearly subordinate to men:
she earns more than her husband. In fact, sociologist examples are the continued female responsibility for
Karen Pyke contended that when husbands perceive housework and child rearing, inequities in sexual
their wives’ employment and earnings as threats to gratification (sex is often over when the male has his
their status and identities rather than as gifts, wives orgasm), the extent of violence against women, and
derive less power from their earnings and employ- the sexual exploitation of children.
ment (Pyke 1994). It appears that marriages in which Feminist scholars suggested several areas that
couples are relatively equal in their earnings are the required further consideration (Szinovacz 1987).
most egalitarian couples (Tichenor 2005a). As sociol- First, they believed that too much emphasis had
ogist Veronica Tichenor asserted, “Money, then, is still been placed on the marital relationship as the unit
linked to power, but only for husbands” (Tichenor of analysis. Instead, they believed that researchers
2005a, 202). Gender has influence on the balance (or should explore the influence of society on power in
imbalance) of power that is somewhat immune to the marriage—specifically, the relationship between social
influence of spouses’ earnings (Tichenor 2005b). structure and women’s position in marriage. Research-
The resource theory has also been criticized for ers could examine, for example, the relationship of
equating power with decision making and for ignor- women’s socioeconomic disadvantages, such as lower
ing that having power may sometimes mean that one pay and fewer economic opportunities than men, to
is freed from having to make decisions. In still other female power in marriage.
circumstances, one may exercise power by influencing Second, these scholars argued that many of the de-
how others make decisions, by forcing them to con- cisions that researchers study are trivial or insignificant
sider the possible consequences of making a decision in measuring “real” family power. Researchers cannot
about which one disapproves. This may be best under- conclude that marriages are becoming more egalitar-
stood using Steven Lukes’s three-dimensional view of ian on the basis of joint decision making about such
240 Chapter Seven
things as where a couple goes for vacation, whether than women. Wives made more concessions to
to buy a new car or appliance, or which movie to see. fit their daily lives around their husbands’ schedules
The critical decisions that measure power are such is- than husbands did to fit their lives around the sched-
sues as how housework is to be divided, who stays ules of their wives. Women were also more likely than
home with the children, and whose job or career takes their husbands to report worrying about upsetting
precedence. or offending their spouses, to do what their spouses
Some scholars suggested that we shift the focus wanted, and to attend to their spouses’ needs (Fox
from marital power to family power. Researcher and Murry 2000). It appears as if characterizing an
Marion Kranichfeld (1987) called for a rethinking of unequal marriage as equal allows a couple to ignore
power in a family context. Even in instances where real if covert power differences that might otherwise
women’s marital power may not be equal to men’s, a threaten their relationships (Fox and Murry 2000).
different picture of women in families may emerge if
we examine power within the entire family structure,
including power in relation to children. The family Intimacy and Conflict
power literature has traditionally focused on marriage
and marital decision making. Kranichfeld, however, Conflict between people who love each other may ini-
felt that such a focus narrows our perception of wom- tially seem to be a mystery. The simultaneous coexis-
en’s power. Marriage is not the same thing as family, tence of conflict and love has puzzled human beings
she argues, and in the wider family context, women for centuries. An ancient Sanskrit poem reflected this
often exert considerable power. Their power may not dichotomy:
be the same as male power, which tends to be primar-
In the old days we both agreed
ily economic, political, or religious. But if by power
That I was you and you were me.
we mean having the ability to change the behavior
But now what has happened
of others intentionally, women have a good deal of
That makes you, you
power in their families.
And me, me?
Research on marital violence suggests that it is the
level of absolute power that has violent consequence We expect love to unify us, but often it doesn’t. Two
for couples. In relationships that are either male domi- people don’t really become one when they love each
nated or female dominated, we find the highest levels other, although at first they may have this feeling. In
of violence. In relationships that are “power divided,” reality, they retain their individual identities, needs,
there is less violence, and in egalitarian relationships, wants, and pasts while loving each other—and it is a
we see the lowest levels of violence (Sagrestano et al. paradox that the more intimate two people become,
1999). Aside from violence, among heterosexual cou- the more likely they may be to experience conflict. But
ples, egalitarian couples also report the highest levels it is not conflict itself that is dangerous to intimate
of relationship satisfaction, whereas couples in which relationships; it is the manner in which the conflict is
the female has more power than the male have been handled. Conflict, itself, is natural.
found to have the lowest levels of satisfaction for both If this is understood, the meaning of conflict
partners (Sprecher and Felmlee 1997). changes, and it will not necessarily represent a cri-
One difficulty with discussions of “egalitarian re- sis in the relationship. David and Vera Mace, promi-
lationships” is the question of whether such relation- nent marriage counselors, observed that on the day
ships truly are equal. Feminist research has revealed of marriage, people have three kinds of raw material
that even among self-professed equal couples, power with which to work. First, there are things they have
processes seem to favor men. Carmen Knudson-Martin in common—the things they both like. Second, there
and Anne Rankin Mahoney’s (1998) study of equal are the ways in which they are different, but the differ-
couples—in which each spouse perceives the relation- ences are complementary. Third, unfortunately, there
ship to be characterized by mutual accommodation are the differences between them that are not comple-
and attention and each spouse has the same ability mentary and that cause them to meet head on with a
to receive cooperation from the other in meeting big bang. In every relationship between two people,
needs or wants—is a case in point. Although couples there are a great many of those kinds of differences. So
described their relationships as equal and their roles when they move closer to each other, those differences
as “non–gender specific,” men wielded more power become disagreements (Mace and Mace 1979).
Experiencing Conflict
The presence of conflict within a marriage or
family doesn’t automatically suggest trouble or
indicate that love is going or gone; it may mean
quite the opposite. In the healthiest of relation-
© Ales Mares-Manton/Asia Images/photolibrary

ships, it is common and normal for couples to
have disagreements or conflicts. The important
factor is not that they have differences or even
how often or what in particular they fight about
but how constructively or harmfully they resolve
their differences. By using occasions of conflict
to implement mutually acceptable behavior
changes or to decide that the differences between
them are acceptable, couple relationships may
grow and solidify as a product of their differ- Conflict is an inevitable and normal part of being in a relationship.
ences. Couples who resolve conflict with mutual Rather than withdrawing from and avoiding conflict, we should
satisfaction and who find ways to adapt to areas use it as a way to build, strengthen, and deepen our relationships.
of conflict tend to be more satisfied with their
relationships overall and are less likely to divorce. leading to the possible end of the relationship. Non-
It seems that in couples where one or both partners basic conflicts are more common and less consequen-
keep quiet and don’t vent their frustrations or express tial; couples learn to live with them.
their feelings, problems may result for either the indi-
vidual partners or the longer-term stability of the rela- Basic Conflicts
tionship. One study of almost 4,000 women and men Basic conflicts revolve around carrying out marital
found that during spousal arguments, nearly a third roles and the functions of marriage and the family,
of men and a quarter of women said that they usually such as providing companionship, working, and rear-
kept their feelings inside during an argument (Parker- ing children. It is assumed, for example, that a hus-
Pope 2007). Such behavior, called self-silencing, had band and a wife will have sexual relations with each
particularly harsh effects on women; women who kept other. But if one partner converts to a religious sect
their feelings to themselves during marital arguments that forbids sexual interaction, a basic conflict is likely
were four times as likely to die during the 10-year span to occur because the other spouse considers sexual
of the research compared to women who said that interaction part of the marital premise. No room for
they always expressed their feelings. Men’s health was compromise exists in such a matter. If one partner
not measurably affected by whether they did or didn’t cannot convince the other to change his or her belief,
express themselves during a fight. the conflict is likely to destroy the relationship. Simi-
larly, despite recent changes in family roles, it is still
expected that the husband will work to provide for the
Matter of Fact When the communication patterns family. If he decides to quit work and not function as a
of newly married African Americans and Caucasians provider, he is challenging a basic assumption of mar-
were examined, couples who believed in avoiding riage. His partner is likely to feel that his behavior is
marital conflict were less happy two years later than unfair. Conflict ensues. If he does not return to work,
those who confronted their problems (Crohan 1996). his wife is likely to leave him.
Nonbasic Conflicts
Nonbasic conflicts do not strike at the heart of a rela-
Basic versus Nonbasic Conflicts
tionship. The husband wants to change jobs and move
Relationships experience two types of conflict—basic to a different city, but the wife may not want to move.
and nonbasic—that have different effects on relation- This may be a major conflict, but it is not a basic one.
ship quality and stability. Basic conflicts challenge the The husband is not unilaterally rejecting his role as a
fundamental assumptions or rules of a relationship, provider. If a couple disagrees about the frequency of
242 Chapter Seven
sex, the conflict is serious but not basic because both ● Wives’ employment had effects on marital conflict
agree on the desirability of sex in the relationship. In when (1) they were employed because they didn’t
both cases, resolution is possible. like spending time at home or (2) their families
needed the extra money. Wives who were satisfied
with their jobs reported lower levels of conflict,
Dealing with Conflict whereas wives who were dissatisfied with their jobs
reported higher levels of conflict.
If we handle conflicts in a healthy way, they can help ● Couples where one or both spouses felt that their
strengthen our relationships. But conflicts can go on division of responsibilities and/or of child care was
and on, consuming the heart of a relationship, turning unfair reported higher levels of conflict (along with
love and affection into bitterness and hatred. In the lower levels of happiness).
following section, we look at ways of resolving conflict ● Couples who maintained more egalitarian relation-
in constructive rather than destructive ways. In this ships, sharing decision making equally, expressed
manner, we can use conflict as a way of building and less marital conflict.
deepening our relationships. ● People with no religious affiliation reported higher
levels of marital conflict. Couples who attended
Marital Conflict religious services together reported lower levels of
conflict.
Comparing sociological research on marital quality
undertaken in 1980 and again in 2000 enabled Paul
On the subject of religion and marital conflict,
Amato and colleagues (2007) to identify many aspects
when there are differences in a couple’s religious
of marriage that have changed and what factors precip-
views, conflict can ensue over marital and familial
itated such changes. One of the key areas they looked
matters. Research suggests that discrepancies about the
at was marital quality, a big part of which pertained to
Bible are associated with more conflicts about house-
the extent of conflict between spouses. Some key find-
work and money. In the specific instance of husbands
ings regarding marital conflict are as follows:
having more conservative Christian beliefs than their
● Between 1980 and 2000, marital conflict wives, disputes about child rearing are more likely.
decreased. When wives have more conservative Christian beliefs
● Gender differences surfaced in both 1980 and than husbands, conflicts about in-laws or how couples
2000, with wives reporting more problems, includ- should spend their time occur more often (Mahoney
ing more conflict, than husbands. 2005).
● Individuals who cohabited before marriage
reported more conflict with their spouses than Comparing Conflict in Marriage
those who had not first cohabited, although the
and Cohabitation
difference was a relatively modest one. Similarly,
the overall increase in cohabitation between 1980 Most research has revealed no significant differences
and 2000 was associated with an increase in the between cohabiting and married couples in their fre-
average level of marital conflict. quency of conflict over such relationship aspects as
● In both 1980 and 2000, marital heterogamy (mar- time spent together, in-laws, money, sex, decisions
riage of two people from different backgrounds about childbearing, or the division of responsibili-
and/or with different demographic characteristics) ties. Nor have most studies found cohabitants to dif-
was associated with more marital conflict than fer significantly in the likelihood of heated arguments
couples who were homogamous. In 2000, couples or the level of open disagreements. Based on a recent
who differed significantly in educational attain- study of more than 1,200 people who were either in
ment, religious affiliation, or marital history (e.g., dating relationships (220), cohabiting (231), or mar-
where one spouse is marrying for the first time to a ried (801), psychologists Annie Hseuh, Kristin Rahbar
partner who has been married at least once before) Morrison and Brian Doss established that compared
reported higher levels of conflict and more marital to married individuals, those in cohabiting relation-
problems. Racial and age heterogamy made little ships were more likely to report problems associated
to no difference in reported levels of conflict in with relationship conflict, including disagreement
2000. about values and goals for the future and an inability
Exploring Diversity: Gender and Marital Conflict
among Korean Immigrants
“Did you bring me to this country for exploitation?” Culturally, there are noteworthy differences between
Such is the plaintive appeal of 41-year-old Yong Ja Kim, the traditional status of husbands in Korea and the situa-
a Korean immigrant, to her husband, Chun Ho Kim. tions of most immigrant Korean men in the United States.
What is it she is objecting to? In what way does she feel Traditionally, Korean husbands were breadwinners and
exploited? Sociologist Pyong Gap Min (2001) researched patriarchal heads of their families. Wives and children
the consequences of immigration for marital relations were expected to obey their husbands and fathers. Women
among Korean immigrant couples. Existing research indi- were further expected to bear children and cater to their
cated that marital conflicts had emerged among Korean husbands and in-laws. Although the traditional South
immigrants to the United States because of women’s Korean family system has been “modified,” it remains a
increased role in the economic support of families without patriarchal system, justified by Confucian ideology. As they
concurrent changes in their husbands’ gender attitudes or have immigrated to the United States, Korean women’s
marital behavior. Min sought to delve more deeply into involvement in paid employment has increased radically.
such conflicts. In the process, traditional gender attitudes and male sense
Among Min’s interviewees were Yong Ja Kim and Chun of self as patriarch and provider have been undermined.
Ho Kim, husband and wife, who work together at their Exacerbating the cultural transition are real economic
retail store six days a week from 9:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. On adjustments. Min notes that with immigration to the
returning home, he watches Korean television programs United States, most Korean immigrant men encounter
and reads a Korean daily newspaper while she prepares significant downward occupational mobility. This, in turn,
dinner. Defensively, he retorts, results in further “status anxiety.” They compensate by
It makes no sense for her to accuse me of not helping her seeking ways to assert their authority in the household,
at home at all. In addition to house maintenance, I took only to find that their wives and children no longer grant
care of garbage disposal more often than she and helped them such status automatically. Min states that Mr. Kim
her with grocery shopping very often. I did neither of the “could not understand much and how fast his wife had
chores in Korea. changed her attitudes toward him since they had come to
the United States. He did not remember her talking back
To his wife, however, the comparison is not between to him in Korea.”
what he did in Korea and what he does in the United Min summarizes his research findings by noting that for
States but between what he does and what she does: Korean immigrant couples, the gulf between their gender-
I work in the store as many hours as you do, and I play an role behavior and their traditional gender attitudes may be
even more important role in our business than you. But you greater than for many other ethnic groups. If so and if such
don’t help me at home. It’s never fair. My friends in Korea discrepancies are partly responsible for marital conflict,
work full-time at home, but don’t have to work outside. the situation for Korean immigrants may be harder than
Here, I work too much both inside and outside the home. for other immigrant groups.
to resolve conflicts (Hseuh, Morrison, and Doss 2009). earlier, suppressing anger is unhealthy, especially for
Cohabitants were also more likely than individuals women. It also can be dangerous to the relationship
in dating relationships to report problems with argu- because it is always there, simmering beneath the
ments and with conflict resolution. surface. It leads to resentment, that brooding, low-
level hostility that poisons both the individual and
the relationship.
Dealing with Anger
Anger can be dealt with in a third way: when con-
Differences can lead to anger, and anger transforms flict escalates into violence. Especially in a culture
differences into fights, creating tension, division, dis- that cloaks families in privacy, surrounds people with
trust, and fear. Most people have learned to handle beliefs that legitimize violence, and gives them the
anger by either venting or suppressing it. As indicated sense that they have a right to influence what their
244 Chapter Seven
loved ones do, escalating anger can result in assault, males (e.g., intimacy and child-rearing practices).
injury, and even death. Given the relative power of When both partners in heterosexual couples were re-
men over women and adults over children, threats quired to discuss an area in which they would like
against one person’s supposed advantage may pro- their partner to make changes, gender patterns were
voke especially harsh reactions. We look closely at the more varied. Significantly more woman demand–man
causes, context, and consequences of family violence withdraw behavior occurred when couples addressed
in Chapter 12. the woman’s top issue, but there was also more man
Finally and most constructively, anger can be rec- demand—woman withdraw behavior during discus-
ognized as a symptom of something that needs to be sions of issues most important to the man. Thus, it
changed. If we see anger as a symptom, we realize that is crucial to avoid overgeneralizing gender patterns
what is important is not venting or suppressing the in partners’ conflict styles; importance of the issue to
anger but finding its source and eliminating it. each party also affects conflict behavior.
Not all conflict is overt. Some conflict can go un-
detected by one of the partners. As such, it will have
minimal effect on him or her and is not likely to lead Conflict Resolution and
to anger. In addition, not all “conflicts” (i.e., of inter- Relationship Satisfaction
est, goals, wishes, expectations, and so on) become
How couples manage conflict is one of the most im-
conflicts. Spouses and partners can approach their dif-
portant determinants of their satisfaction and the
ferences in many ways short of overt conflict (Fincham
well-being of their relationships (Greeff and deBruyne
and Beach 1999).
2000). Happy couples are not conflict free; instead,
they tend to act in positive ways to resolve conflicts,
How Women and Men Handle Conflict such as changing behaviors (putting the cap on the
toothpaste rather than denying responsibility) and
In keeping with observed gender differences in com- presenting reasonable alternatives (purchasing tooth-
munication, research has identified differences in how paste in a dispenser). Unhappy or distressed couples,
men and women approach and manage conflict. As in contrast, use more negative strategies in attempt-
summarized by Rhonda Faulkner, Maureen Davey, ing to resolve conflicts (“If the cap off the toothpaste
and Adam Davey (2004), we can identify the follow- bothers you, then you put it on”).
ing gender differences: Thus, we can talk of “constructive” and “destruc-
● As we saw earlier in discussing the demand– tive” or “helpful and unhelpful” conflict management
withdraw pattern, women are more likely than men (duPlessis and Clarke, 2007; Greef and deBruyne
are to initiate discussions of contested relationship 2000). Constructive conflict management is charac-
issues. Where men have been found to be more terized by flexibility, a relationship rather than indi-
likely to withdraw from negative marital interac- vidual (self-interest) focus, an intention to learn from
tions, women are more likely to pursue conversa- their differences, and cooperation. Additional char-
tion or conflict. acteristics of “helpful” conflict management include
● Typically, women are more aware of the emo- compromise, negotiation, turn taking, calm discus-
tional quality of and the events that occur in the sions, listening carefully, and trying to understand the
relationship. other’s perspective.
● In the course and processes of conflict management Destructive conflict management consists of the
and resolution, men take on instrumental roles, following:
and women take on expressive roles. Men approach
● Escalating spirals of manipulation, threat, and
conflict resolution from a task-oriented stance, as
coercion
in “problem solving”; women are more emotion-
● Avoidance
ally expressive as they pursue intimacy.
● Retaliation
We need to bear in mind that the research designs ● Inflexibility
used to study patterns of interaction in conflict man- ● A competitive pattern of dominance and
agement may have exaggerated the gender connection subordination
by commonly asking couples to engage in discussion ● Demeaning or insulting verbal and nonverbal
of topics of greater importance to females than to communication
Additional characteristics of “unhelpful” conflict Research is mixed as to the effectiveness of humor
management include confrontation, complaining, in conflict management. More satisfied couples dis-
criticizing, defensiveness, and displaying contempt. play higher levels of nonsarcastic humor and, during
A study of happily and unhappily married cou- discussions of problems, share laughter. The type of
ples found distinctive communication traits as these humor appears to make a critical difference. Affilia-
couples tried to resolve their conflicts (Ting-Toomey tive humor, where one says funny or witty things or
1983). The communication behaviors of happily mar- tells jokes in an effort to reduce tension and enhance
ried couples displayed the following traits: the relationship, may in fact lead to less distress and
assist discussions of and facilitate resolution of prob-
● Summarizing. Each person summarized what the lems. Aggressive humor, which is used to tease, ridicule,
other said: “Let me see if I can repeat the different or disparage the other, may impede such efforts and
points you were making.” lead to greater distress (Campbell, Martin, and Ward
● Paraphrasing. Each put what the other said into his 2008).
or her own words: “What you are saying is that you
feel bad when I don’t acknowledge your feelings.” What Determines How Couples
● Validating. Each affirmed the other’s feelings: “I can Handle Conflict?
understand how you feel.” Many factors might affect how couples approach and
● Clarifying. Each asked for further information to attempt to manage the inevitable conflict that rela-
make sure that he or she understood what the other tionships contain. Among these, premarital variables,
was saying: “Can you explain what you mean a lit- including carryover effects of upbringing, may be
tle bit more to make sure that I understand you?” particularly influential. Glade Topham, Jeffrey Larson,
and Thomas Holman (2005) suggest that such influ-
In contrast, “distressed” or unhappily married couples
ence may be conscious or unconscious; may affect
displayed the following reciprocal patterns:
behaviors and patterns of interaction as well as atti-
● Confrontation. Both partners confronted each other: tudes, beliefs, and self-esteem; and may remain even
“You’re wrong!” “Not me, buddy. It’s you who’s in the absence of contact with the family of origin.
wrong!” Family-of-origin factors can be explained by so-
● Confrontation and defensiveness. One partner con- cial learning theory or attachment theory. Learning
fronted and the other defended: “You’re wrong!” theory suggests that by observing parents and how
“I only did what I was supposed to do.” they interact with each other, we develop a marital
● Complaining and defensiveness. One partner com- paradigm: a set of images about how marriage ought
plained, and the other was defensive: “I work so to be done, “for better or worse” (Marks 1986). When,
hard each day to come home to this!” “This is the as children, we fail to experience a positive model of
best I can do with no help.” marriage, we may develop ineffective communica-
tion or conflict resolution skills. Attachment theory
Overall, distressed couples use more negative and suggests that our attachment style influences the way
fewer positive statements. They become “locked in” conflict is expressed in relationships (Pistole 1989).
to conflict. Thus, a major task for such couples is to Secure parent–child relationships lead us to be more
find an effective or adaptive way out (Fincham and self-confident and socially confident, more likely to
Beach 1999). view others as trustworthy and dependable, and more
One of the strongest predictors of marital unhap- comfortable with and within relationships. Individu-
piness and of the possibility of eventual divorce is als who had insecure parent–child attachments are
whether couples engage in hostile conflict. Hostile more demanding of support and attention, more de-
conflict is a pattern of negative interaction wherein pendent on others for self-validation, and more self-
couples engage in frequent heated arguments, call deprecating and emotionally hypersensitive (Topham
each other names and insult each other, display an et al. 2005).
unwillingness to listen to each other, and lack emo- In contrast to anxious or ambivalent and avoidant
tional involvement with each other (Gottman 1994; adults, secure adults are more satisfied in their re-
Topham, Larson, and Holman 2005). Once such pat- lationships and use conflict strategies that focus on
terns become the normative pattern in a relationship, maintaining the relationship. Helping the relationship
they are difficult to change. stay cohesive is more important than “winning” the
246 Chapter Seven
battle. Secure adults are more likely to compromise couples. Finally, although some research suggests that
than are anxious or ambivalent adults, and anxious or when husbands and wives agree on how to manage
ambivalent adults are more likely than avoidant adults conflict they have happier marriages, other findings
to give in to their partners’ wishes, whether they agree indicate that discrepancies in spouses’ beliefs about
with them or not. conflict are not predictive of how satisfied they are
Although either husbands’ or wives’ family-of- (Greeff and deBruyne 2000).
origin experiences could negatively affect marital qual-
ity and conflict management, the influences are not Conflict Resolution across Relationship Types
equivalent. Wives’ family-of-origin experiences— All couple relationships experience conflict. Using
including the quality of relationships with their moth- self-report and partner-report data, Lawrence Kurdek
ers, the quality of parental discipline they received, and (1994) explored how conflicts were handled by
the overall quality of their family environments—are 75 gay, 51 lesbian, 108 married nonparent, and
more important than husbands’ experiences in pre- 99 married parent couples. Essentially, the differences
dicting hostile marital conflict (Topham et al. 2005). across couple type were less impressive than were the
There are two “analytically independent” dimen- similarities. The four types of couples did not signifi-
sions of behavior in conflict situations: assertiveness cantly differ in their level of ineffective arguing, and
and cooperativeness (Greeff and deBruyne 2000; there were no noteworthy differences in their styles of
Thomas 1976). Assertiveness refers to attempts to conflict resolution as measured by the Conflict Resolu-
satisfy our own concerns; cooperativeness speaks to at- tion Styles Inventory (CRSI). The CRSI includes four
tempts to satisfy concerns of others. With these two styles of conflict resolution: (1) positive problem solving
dimensions in mind, we can identify five conflict man- (including negotiation and compromise), (2) conflict
agement styles: engagement (such as personal attacks), (3) withdrawal
(refusing to further discuss an issue), and (4) compli-
● Competing. Behavior is assertive and uncooperative,
ance (such as giving in). Ratings were obtained from
associated with “forcing behavior and win–lose
both partners about themselves and the other part-
arguing.” This style can lead to increased conflict as
ner. There was little indication that the frequency with
well as to either or both spouses feeling powerless
which conflict resolution styles were used varied across
and resentful (Greeff and deBruyne 2000).
couple type. As Kurdek (1994) notes, there is similar-
● Collaborating. Behavior is assertive and coopera-
ity in relationship dynamics across couple types.
tive; couples confront disagreements and engage in
problem solving to uncover solutions. Collabora-
tive conflict management may require relationships Common Conflict Areas:
that are relatively equal in power and high in trust. Sex, Money, and Housework
Using this style then accentuates both the trust and
the commitment that couples feel. Even if, as the Russian writer Leo Tolstoy suggested,
● Compromising. This is an intermediate position in every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way,
terms of both assertiveness and cooperativeness. marital conflicts still tend to center on certain recur-
Couples seek “middle-ground” solutions. ring issues, especially communication, children and
● Avoiding. Behavior is unassertive and uncoopera- parenting, sex, money, personality differences, how
tive, characterized by withdrawal and by refusing to spend leisure time, in-laws, infidelity, and house-
to take a position in disagreements. keeping. In this section, we focus on three areas: sex,
● Accommodating. This style is unassertive and money, and housework. Then we discuss general ways
cooperative. One person attempts to soothe the of resolving conflicts.
other person and restore harmony.
Fighting about Sex
Research has yielded inconsistent (“diverse”) re- Fighting and sex can be intertwined in several ways
sults about the relationship outcomes of each of these (Strong and DeVault 1997). A couple can have a spe-
styles. Some studies favor one style—collaboration— cific disagreement about sex that leads to a fight. One
over all others as the only style displayed by satisfied person wants to have sexual intercourse, and the other
couples. There is research suggesting that avoidance is does not, so they fight. A couple can have an indirect
dysfunctional and antisocial, yet there is research that fight about sex. The woman does not have an orgasm,
finds avoidance associated with satisfied, nondistressed and after intercourse, her partner rolls over and starts
Issues and Insights: “What Are We Fighting About?”
Conflict is common. Living with other people introduces tendencies can be seen in Table 7.2, reflecting the per-
numerous points of potential disagreement. Not all centage of spouses who listed a problem as either “very
disagreements are equally serious or carry equal risks often a problem” or “often a problem.”
for the health and future of the relationship. When As far as what problem area couples were most
researchers surveyed therapists, seeking to identify the likely to identify as their “presenting problem,” by far
frequency, difficulty in treating, and severity of the ef- “communication problems” were most often mentioned
fect of 29 problems couples might face, they found the by both males and females, regardless of how long they
following problems identified as the most frequent were married. Finally, as shown in Table 7.3, there
problems couples bring to therapy: unrealistic expec- were statistically significant gender differences for six
tations, power struggles, communication problems, problem areas.
sexual problems, and conflict management difficulties. According to Miller and colleagues, their findings indi-
Problems deemed most difficult to treat included lack of cate that problems experienced by couples are relatively
loving feelings, alcoholism, extrarelational affairs, and stable as opposed to varying much over the life cycle.
power struggles (Miller et al. 2003; Whisman, Dixon, and As to gender, they remind therapists that females gener-
Johnson 1997). ally perceive more problems than males within marital
Using a clinical sample of 160 couples married relationships. Somewhat consistent with the idea of “two
between one and 20 years, Richard Miller and marriages,” males and females may indeed experience
colleagues (2003) sought to determine whether couples relationships and problems within those relationships
at different life cycle stages experience and seek help with differently (Storaasli and Markman 1990). Women’s
different kinds of problems. Couples were asked to con- tendencies to report problem areas as more severe or
sider as problem areas: children, communication, house- frequent suggest “a complex picture of gender-related
cleaning, gender-role issues, financial matters, sexual issues.” Finally, regardless of how long a couple has
issues, spiritual matters, emotional intimacy, violence, been married, couples’ therapists must be prepared to
commitment, values, parents-in-law, decision making, assess and treat problems dealing with communication,
and commitment. Couples were asked to consider where financial matters, sexual issues, decision-making skills,
each problem ranked in frequency from “very often a and emotional intimacy because such problem areas are
problem” (5) to “never a problem” (1). Because it was consistent features of married life over which couples
a clinical sample, couples were also asked to consider encounter difficulty.
from nine choices the problem that most brought them It is worth pointing out that conflict is driven not only
to therapy, including as possibilities communication, by “what” couples fight about but also by the wider
violence, sexual issues, financial matters, emotional inti- social context in which relationships exist. Taking a
macy, separation or divorce concerns, extramarital affairs, broader view, we need to pay attention to the effects of
commitment issues, or some other problem. negative life events, essentially nonmarital stressors, that
Problems with communication and financial matters may lead to more negative communication, poorer
were the most commonly reported. Also frequently men- parenting, and lower satisfaction. Likewise, the amount
tioned were emotional intimacy, sexual issues, and of social support a couple enjoys outside the marriage
decision making. Gender-role issues, values, violence, may influence the direction and outcomes of conflict
and spiritual issues were not common problems. These (Fincham and Beach 1999).
to snore. She lies in bed feeling angry and frustrated. provider. He takes it out on her sexually by calling her
In the morning, she begins to fight with her partner a lousy lover. They fight about their lovemaking rather
over his not doing his share of the housework. The than about the issue of his provider role. A couple
housework issue obscures why she is angry. Sex can can fight about the wrong sexual issue. A woman may
also be used as a scapegoat for nonsexual problems. berate her partner for being too quick during sex, but
A husband is angry that his wife calls him a lousy what she is really frustrated about is that he is not
248 Chapter Seven
Table 7.2 Percentage Reporting Area Is Either “Very Often” or “Often” a Problem
Males Females
Problem <3 years* 3–10 years >10 years <3 years 3–10 years >10 years
Communication 56.7% 63.8% 53.2% 62.9% 67.4% 66.6%
Financial matters 37.8 54.4 56.3 26.9 55.1 67.7
Decision making 27.0 34.4 25.0 34.2 42.7 48.4
Emotional intimacy 21.6 " 50.3 21.9 42.8 52.8 45.2
Sexual issues 21.6 34.1 28.2 37.2 38.2 29.0
Parent-in-law 27.0 24.2 19.4 28.5 31.5 22.6
Leisure activities 18.9" 30.1 15.7 34.3 40.4 35.5
Dealing with children 18.2 22.8 28.1 26.9 35.6 29.1
Commitment 21.6 19.8 9.4 11.4 18.2 32.2
Housecleaning 13.5 25.6 18.8 17.1 28.1 29.0
Gender-role issues 10.8 13.5 0.0 14.3 16.8 9.7
Values 13.5 15.7 9.4 5.7 17.0 10.0
Violence 8.8 1.3 3.4 9.4 3.9 3.6
Spiritual matters 0.0 5.6 3.1 5.8 6.9 9.7
*Numbers represent duration of marriage.

"
Duration of marriage group differences for that gender significant at p # 0.05.
Table 7.3 Frequency of Reporting Areas

Problem Males Females
Dealing with children* 2.71 2.98
Emotional intimacy* 3.15 3.45
Sexual issues " 2.90 3.08
Parents-in-law " 2.62 2.84
Communication@ 3.70 4.00
Decision making " 3.05 3.27
Range: (1) “never a problem” to (5) “very often a problem”

*Difference significant at p # 0.01
"
Difference significant at p # 0.05
@
Difference significant at p # 0.001
interested in oral sex with her. She, however, feels make his partner so angry that the last thing he would
ambivalent about oral sex (“Maybe I smell bad”), want to do is to have sex with him.
so she cannot confront her partner with the real In power struggles, sexuality can be used as a
issue. Finally, a fight can be a cover-up. If a man feels weapon, but this is generally a destructive tactic
sexually inadequate and does not want to have sex (Szinovacz 1987). A classic strategy for the weaker
as often as his male partner, he may pick a fight and person in a relationship is to withhold something that
the more powerful one wants. In male–female strug- Couples disagree or fight over money for a num-
gles, this is often sex. By withholding sex, a woman ber of reasons. One of the most important has to do
gains a certain degree of power. A few men also use with power. Earning wages has traditionally given
sex in its most violent form: they rape (including date men power in families. A woman’s work in the home
rape and marital rape) to overpower and subordinate has not been rewarded by wages. As a result, full-time
women. In rape, aggressive motivations displace homemakers have been placed in the position of hav-
sexual ones. ing to depend on their husbands for money. In such an
It is hard to tell during a fight if there are deeper arrangement, if there are disagreements, the woman is
causes than the one about which a couple is fighting. at a disadvantage. If she is deferred to, the old cliché
Is a couple fighting because one wants to have sex “I make the money but she spends it” has a bitter
now and the other doesn’t? Or are there deeper rearing to it. As women increased their participation in
sons involving power, control, fear, or inadequacy? the workforce, however, power relations within fami-
If they repeatedly fight about sexual issues without lies have shifted some. Studies indicate that women’s
getting anywhere, the ostensible cause may not be the influence in financial and other decisions increases if
real one. If fighting does not clear the air and make they are employed outside the home.
intimacy possible again, they should look for other Another major source of monetary conflict is
reasons for the fights. It may be useful for them to talk allocation of the family’s income. Not only does this
with each other about why the fights do not seem to involve deciding who makes the decisions, but it also
accomplish anything. In addition, it would be helpful includes setting priorities. Is it more important to pay
if they step back and look at the circumstances of the a past-due bill or to buy a new television set to re-
fight, what patterns occur, and how each feels before, place the broken one? Is a dishwasher a necessity or
during, and after a fight. a luxury? Should money be put aside for long-range
Sexual tensions and strains arise because of these goals, or should immediate needs be satisfied? Set-
other conflicts that happen to play themselves out ting financial priorities plays on each person’s values
in the physical relationship. With a more “positive, and temperament; it is affected by basic aspects of an
respectful, affirming process of conflict resolution,” individual’s personality.
partners may deepen the respect and admiration they Dating relationships are a poor indicator of how
feel for each other, develop a greater level of trust a couple will deal with money matters in marriage.
and of self-esteem in their relationship, and grow Dating has clearly defined rules about money: either
more confident that the relationship can withstand the man pays, both pay separately, or they take turns
and grow through future conflict. These can create paying. In dating situations, each partner is finan-
positive feelings and comfort with each other that cially independent of the other. Money is not pooled,
facilitate sexual desire (Metz and Epstein 2002). as it usually is in a committed partnership or mar-
Although the conflicts being resolved need not be riage. Power issues do not necessarily enter spending
sexual, positive and constructive relationship conflict decisions because each person has his or her own
resolution may provide affirmation of the love and money. Differences can be smoothed out fairly eas-
intimacy two people share, bring emotional relief, ily. Both individuals are financially independent
and even serve as a sexual stimulant (Metz and Ep- before marriage but financially interdependent after
stein 2002). Thus, the intensity of pleasure supposedly marriage. Even cohabitation may not be an accurate
accompanying “makeup sex” is another reminder of guide to how a couple would deal with money in
how conflict and its resolution can affect sex regardless marriage, as cohabitators generally do not pool all
of whether it is about sex. (or even part) of their income. It is the working out
of financial interdependence in marriage that is often
Money Conflicts so difficult.
An old Yiddish proverb addresses the problem of Why do we find it difficult to be financially in-
managing money quite well: “Husband and wife are terdependent and talk about money? There may be
the same flesh, but they have different purses.” Money several reasons. First, we don’t want to appear to be
is a major source of marital conflict in families in the unromantic or selfish. If a couple is about to marry,
United States and abroad. People in intimate relation- a discussion of attitudes toward money may lead to
ships differ about spending money probably as much disagreements, shattering the illusion of unity or
as or more than any other single issue. selflessness. Second, gender roles make it difficult for
250 Chapter Seven
women to express their feelings about money because In a study of 54 Dutch couples, Esther Kluwer, Jose
women are traditionally supposed to defer to men in Heesink, and Evert Van de Vliert (1996) found that
financial matters. Third, because men tend to make conflict about household work was related to wives’
more money than women, women feel that their right dissatisfaction with how much they and their spouses
to disagree about financial matters is limited. These were contributing in terms of time and tasks and their
feelings are especially prevalent if the woman is a and their husbands’ relative contributions and expen-
homemaker and does not make a financial contribu- ditures of time. They noted that 72% of the wives pre-
tion, but they devalue her child care and housework ferred to do less than they actually did; that is, when
contributions. they spent more time on housework than they pre-
ferred to, they were dissatisfied. They also tended to
Housework and Conflict be dissatisfied if they perceived their husbands spend-
The division of responsibility for housework can be ing less time than they preferred them to spend on
one of the most significant issues couples face, espe- housework. In the study, 52% of the wives wished
cially dual-earner couples (Kluwer, Heesink, and Van their husbands would do more housework than they
de Vliert 1997). It can become a source of tension and actually did (Kluwer et al. 1996).
conflict within marriage (Hochschild 1989). Part of How much each spouse contributes to the house-
this is an understandable consequence of the inequal- hold is only the more observable aspect of the “politics
ity in each spouse’s contribution; most men do not do of housework.” In addition, couples must reach agree-
much housework. Whether or not they are employed ments about standards, schedules, and management
outside the home and whether there are children in of housework. Conflicts about standards are struggles
the home or not, wives bear the bulk of housework over whose standards will predominate: who decides
responsibility. A husband’s lack of involvement can cre- whether things are “clean enough”? Similarly, disputes
ate resentment and affect the levels of both conflict and about schedules reflect whose time is more valuable and
happiness in a marriage. Longitudinal research on mar- which partner works around the other’s sense of priori-
ried couples reveals that husbands whose wives per- ties. Finally, arguments about who bears responsibility
ceived that the division of housework was unfair report for organizing, initiating, or overseeing housework tasks
higher levels of marital conflict over time (Faulkner, are also disputes about who will have to ask the other
Davey, and Davey 2005). Similarly, in her acclaimed for help, carry more responsibility in his or her head,
study of the division of housework among 50 dual- and risk refusal from an uncooperative partner.
earner couples, Arlie Hochschild (1989) argued that Thus, housework conflicts have both practical and
men’s level of sharing “the second shift” (i.e., unpaid symbolic dimensions. Practically, there are things
domestic work and child care) influenced the levels of that somehow must get done for households to run
marital happiness couples enjoyed and their relative smoothly and families to function efficiently. Couples
risk of divorce. This held true whether couples were must decide who shall do them and how and when they
traditional or egalitarian in their views of marriage. should be done. On a more symbolic level, disputes
over housework may be ex-
perienced as conflicts about
the level of commitment
each spouse feels toward
Reprinted with special permission of King Features Syndicates
the marriage. Because mar-

riage symbolizes the union
of two people who share
their lives, work together,
consult each other, and
take each other’s feelings
and needs into consider-
ation, resisting housework
or doing it only under du-
ress may be seen as a less-
than-equal commitment.
Housework is one of the more contested areas of married life. We look more in detail at
the dynamics surrounding the division of housework Physical Health
in Chapter 11.
The absence of overt conflict over the allocation Marital conflict is associated with poorer overall physi-
of tasks and time does not mean that there is no cal health, as well as certain specific illnesses. These
conflict. It means only that the conflict is not openly include cancer, heart disease, and chronic pain. The
expressed. Wives in more traditional marriages are associations are stronger for wives than for husbands
more likely than wives in egalitarian relationships to and may be the result of altered physiological func-
avoid conflict over housework even if they are dis- tioning, including endocrine, cardiac, and immu-
satisfied with their domestic arrangements. They may nological functioning, associated with the distress
withdraw from discussions of the division of labor introduced by marital conflict.
as a way of avoiding the issue. Because egalitarian
couples may engage in more open discussion and
Familial and Child Well-Being
conflict over housework responsibilities, such conflict
gives them more opportunity to establish a solution Marital conflict may disrupt the entire family, especially
(Kluwer et al. 1997). if the conflict is frequent, intense, and unresolved. Mar-
ital conflict has been shown to be connected to poorer
parenting, problematic parent–child attachments,
Consequences of Conflict and greater frequency and intensity of parent–child or
sibling–sibling conflict. Consequences for children can
While conflict is a normal part of marriages and re- be particularly harmful when the conflict centers on
lationships, excessive conflict can have negative per- issues about the children and child rearing. The most
sonal or relationship consequences. Among couples destructive form of marital conflict appears to be when
who engage in frequent conflict, spouses can suffer couples engage in attacking and withdrawing (hostility
negative consequences to their physical and mental and detachment). In addition, when marriage is charac-
health and to their overall well-being (Choi and Marks terized by the absence of or low levels of warmth, mu-
2008). Spouses in high-conflict marriages may engage tuality, and harmony between parents, along with the
in more behaviors that negatively affect their physical presence of high levels of competitiveness and conflict,
health, such as smoking or drinking alcohol, while at children develop more externalizing and peer problems
the same time lacking the benefit of social and emo- (Katz and Woodin 2002). When parental marriages lack
tional support that accompanies happier marriages. relationship cohesiveness, are devoid of playfulness and
Marriages assessed as low-quality marriages expose fun, and yet have high degree of conflict, children miss
spouses to higher risk of depression, which itself can out on the warmth, intimacy, and security that healthy
have physical health consequences. It is even possible, families can provide (Katz and Woodin 2002).
health researchers suggest, that repeated exposure to Research reveals numerous problematic effects of
marital conflict and tension can induce physiological marital conflict on children, including health prob-
effects that eventually affect one’s physical health. lems, depression, anxiety, conduct problems, and
Marital conflict has effects on a host of outcomes low self-esteem. When marital conflict is frequent,
related to individual mental and physical health, fam- intense, and child centered, it has especially negative
ily health, and child well-being. Frank Fincham and consequences for children. Peer relations also suffer
Steven Beach’s thorough review (1999) of research on when children are exposed to early and prolonged
marital conflict showed the following outcomes. high levels of parental conflict. This is especially severe
when children have insecure parental attachment and
can be observed in children as young as three years old
Mental Health (Lindsey, Caldera, and Tankersley 2009).
There are links between experiencing marital conflict How do children react to marital conflict? Research
and suffering from depression, eating disorders, being indicates that children are distressed by both verbal
physically and/or psychologically abusive of partners, and physical conflict but reassured by healthy con-
and male alcohol problems (including excessive flict resolution. Witnessing threats, personal insults,
drinking, binge drinking, and alcoholism). There is verbal and nonverbal hostility, physical aggressiveness
less evidence connecting marital conflict to elevated between parents or by parents toward objects (e.g.,
levels of anxiety. breaking or slamming things), and defensiveness
252 Chapter Seven
all can give rise to “heightened negative emotional- ents disagree (Cummings et al. 2003). However, the
ity” (Cummings, Goeke-Morey, and Papp 2003). absence or failure of resolution causes anger, sadness,
When parental conflict leads one parent (or both) to and distress. A frequently posed question, one that we
withdraw as a means of dealing with the differences consider in Chapter 13, is whether the effects of con-
between them, children’s distress is also worsened flict on children are worse than the effects of divorce.
(Goeke-Morey, Cummings, and Papp 2007).
Conversely, when parents engage in calm discus-
Can Conflict Be Beneficial?
sion and display affection and continued support
even while engaged in conflict, children react posi- As we noted earlier, conflict is a normal and predictable
tively. Conflict resolution lessens the negative effects part of living with other people, especially given the
of parental conflict on children, especially when what intensity of emotions that exist within marriage. Con-
children see is parents compromising with each other flict, itself, is not necessarily damaging; there may be
so as to resolve their differences (Goeke-Morey et al. benefits of conflict in which spouses’ “conflict engage-
2007). Parents’ displays of support, including provid- ment” (especially that of husbands) predicts positive
ing validation to one another and affection during change in husbands’ and wives’ satisfaction with mar-
conflict, may reassure children that the marital rela- riage. It appears as though some negative behavior—
tionship remains strong and loving even though par- such as conflict—may be both healthy and necessary
for long-term marital well-being. Too little conflict (sug-
gestive of avoidance), like too much conflict, may lead
to poorer outcomes. However, the outcome of conflict
varies, along with the meaning and function of con-
flict behavior. It can as easily reflect engagement with a
problem as it can suggest withdrawal from the problem
(Christensen and Pasch 1993). Furthermore, it may be
part of an effort to maintain the relationship or con-
versely indicate that one or both partners have given up
on the relationship (Holmes and Murray 1996). Thus,
as Frank Fincham and Steven Beach (1999, 54) suggest,
“We have to identify the circumstances in which con-
flict behaviors are likely to result in enhancement rather
than deterioration of marital relationships.”
Resolving Conflicts
There are a number of ways to end conflicts and solve
problems. You can give in, but unless you believe that
the conflict ended fairly, you are likely to feel resent-
ful. You can try to impose your will through the use
of power, force, or the threat of force, but using power
to end conflict leaves your partner with the bitter taste
of injustice. Less productive conflict resolution strat-
© Royalty-Free/CORBIS
egies include coercion (threats, blame, and sarcasm),

manipulation (attempting to make your partner feel
guilty), and avoidance (Regan 2003).
More positive strategies for resolving conflict in-
clude supporting your partner (through active listening,
Children react to parental conflict in a variety of ways,
depending on how the parents handle themselves.
compromise, or agreement), assertion (clearly stating
Although children can be hurt by outward displays of anger your position and keeping the conversation on topic),
and especially by witnessing violence, “healthy conflict and reason (the use of rational argument and the con-
management” may be beneficial for children to witness. sideration of alternatives) (Regan 2003). Finally, you
thing you don’t want to do. When
you agree without coercion or
threats, the agreement is a gift of
love, given freely without resent-
ment. As in all exchanges of gifts,
there will be reciprocation. Your
partner will be more likely to give
you a gift of agreement. This gift
of agreement is based on referent
power, discussed earlier.
Bargaining
Bargaining in relationships—the
process of making compromis-
es—is different from bargaining
in the marketplace or in politics.
In relationships, you want what
Text not available due to copyright restrictions
is best for the relationship, the
most equitable deal for both you
and your partner, not just the
best deal for yourself. During the
bargaining process, you need to
trust your partner to do the same.
In a marriage, both partners need
to win. The result of conflict in
a marriage should be to solidify
the relationship, not to make one
partner the winner and the other
the loser. Achieving your end by
exercising coercive power or with-
holding love, affection, or sex is a
destructive form of bargaining. If
you get what you want, how will
that affect your partner and the
relationship? Will your partner
can end the conflict through negotiation. In nego- feel that you are being unfair and become resentful?
tiation, both partners sit down and work out their A solution has to be fair to both, or it won’t enhance
differences until they come to a mutually acceptable the relationship.
agreement (see Figure 7.2). Conflicts can be solved
through negotiation in three primary ways: agreement
as a gift, bargaining, and coexistence.
Coexistence
Although unresolved conflict may, over time, wear
away at marital quality, sometimes differences simply
Agreement as a Gift
can’t be resolved. In such instances, they may need to
If you and your partner disagree on an issue, you can be lived with. If a relationship is sound, often differ-
freely agree with your partner as a gift. If you want ences can be absorbed without undermining the basic
to go to the Caribbean for a vacation and your part- ties. All too often, we regard a difference as a threat
ner wants to go backpacking in Alaska, you can freely rather than as the unique expression of two personali-
agree to go to Alaska. An agreement as a gift is differ- ties. Rather than being driven mad by the cap left off
ent from giving in. When you give in, you do some- the toothpaste, perhaps we can learn to live with it.
254 Chapter Seven
Forgiveness not consider minor transgressions important enough
to warrant either receiving apologies or granting for-
Related to the issues of conflict and its resolution is giveness (Kachadourian et al. 2004).
the topic of forgiveness. Conceptualized as a reduction If we can’t talk about what we like and what we
in negative feelings and an increase in positive feel- want, there is a good chance that we won’t get either.
ings toward a “transgressor” after a transgression, an Communication is the basis for good relationships.
attitude of goodwill toward someone who has done Communication and intimacy are reciprocal: commu-
us harm, and showing compassion and forgoing re- nication creates intimacy, and intimacy in turn helps
sentment toward someone who has caused us pain, create good communication.
research has determined that forgiveness has long-
term physical and mental health benefits for the per-
son forgiving. Forgiveness is associated with enhanced
self-esteem, positive feelings toward the transgressor,
Helping Yourself
and reduced levels of negative emotions, such as by Getting Help
anger, grief, revenge, and depression. In a relationship
context, forgiveness has been defined as “the tendency Despite good intentions and communication skills,
to forgive partner transgressions over time and across we may not be able to resolve our relationship prob-
situations” (Fincham and Beach 2002). lems on our own. Accepting the need for professional
Forgiveness has been found to be a crucial ele- assistance may be a significant first step toward recon-
ment of married life. It is an important aspect of ciliation and change. Experts advise counseling when
efforts to restore trust and relationship harmony communication is hostile, conflict goes unresolved,
after a transgression. Most “forgiveness narratives” individuals cannot resolve their differences, and/or a
mention motivations such as a partner’s well-being, partner is thinking about leaving.
restoration of the relationship, and love (Fincham Marriage and partners counseling are professional
and Beach 2002). Forgiveness has been shown to services whose purpose is to assist individuals, cou-
resolve existing difficulties and prevent future ones. ples, and families gain insight into their motivations
It also enhances marital quality, as can be seen in the and actions within the context of a relationship while
positive association between forgiveness and marital providing tools and support to make positive changes.
satisfaction and longevity (Kachadourian, Fincham, A skilled counselor offers objective, expert, and dis-
and Davila 2004). creet help. Much of what counselors do is crisis or
Research has identified both personal and relation- intervention oriented.
ship qualities associated with the ability or tendency It may be more valuable and perhaps more effective
to forgive. Qualities such as agreeableness, religiosity, to take a preventive approach and explore dynamics
humility, emotional stability, and empathy are
associated with forgiveness. Pride and narcis-
sism are associated with decreased tendencies
to forgive. Individuals who are more accom-
modating within their relationships, are more
securely attached, and have more positive mod-
els of self and others are also more likely to be
forgiving toward partners who have committed
transgressions.
Not all relationship transgressions are equiv-
© Gary Conner/PHOTOTAKE/Alamy
alent. The ability to forgive relatively minor

transgressions doesn’t automatically guarantee
forgiveness of more major transgressions. In het-
erosexual couples, wives who display tendencies
to forgive seem able to do so in both minor and
major transgressions. For husbands, on the other
hand, tendencies to forgive apply more to major It may be necessary to seek outside assistance to resolve
transgressions. It appears as though men may conflicts effectively and preserve one’s relationship.
Public Policies, Private Lives: “Can We Learn How
to Manage and Avoid Conflict?”
Is marital conflict something we can be taught to avoid? and African Americans least likely to participate. Those
Is marital communication something we can learn to do with lower levels of education as well as those with
more effectively? Can we learn such things before ever higher levels of economic distress were less likely to
spending even a day as married? Existing research on the participate.
success of premarital education offers encouraging an- 3. Premarital education appears to enhance marital
swers to these questions. A recent study by Scott Stanley outcomes. Participation was positively associated with
and colleagues (2007) is an especially good case in point. marital satisfaction and commitment and negatively
After noting promising research about premarital educa- associated with marital conflict. Perhaps of greatest
tion programs, Stanley and associates examined data from interest, participation in premarital education was asso-
a large, multistate U.S. random sample to determine the ciated with a 31% reduction in one’s odds of divorce.
effectiveness of premarital education in lowering marital 4. The more time one spends in such a program is associ-
conflict, raising marital satisfaction, and reducing the like- ated with greater benefit from such training, though
lihood of divorce. More than 3,000 adults in Oklahoma, this benefit tops out at about 10 hours, after which
Kansas, Arkansas, and Texas were surveyed to see whether additional benefits are slight.
the use of such programs had increased, whether use
Stanley et al.’s results support other research findings
varied by race and education, whether use led to desired
in generating optimism in the possibility of enhancing
marital outcomes, and whether the length or venue within
marital quality by learning to improve communication
which a program occurred made a difference in outcome.
and reduce and more effectively manage conflict. At pres-
Their findings are encouraging:
ent, most people who participate in premarital programs
1. Participation in premarital education programs has do so through the religious organizations to which they
greatly increased, from less than 10% of those married belong as they prepare to marry. Perhaps a mechanism
in the 1930s and 1940s to more than 40% of those to make such training more widely available and incen-
married since 1990. tives to make participation more likely would combine
2. Participation in premarital education varied by race and to improve the marital experience of a greater number of
ethnicity and with education. Latinos were most likely individuals and couples.
and behaviors before they cause more significant ● Psychiatrists are licensed medical doctors who, in
problems. This may occur at any point in relation- addition to completing at least six years of postbac-
ships: during the engagement, before an anticipated calaureate medical and psychological training, can
pregnancy, or at the departure of a last child. prescribe medication.
Each state has its own degree and qualifications ● Clinical psychologists have usually completed a PhD,
for marriage counselors. The American Association which requires at least six years of postbaccalaure-
for Marital and Family Therapy is one association ate course work. A license requires additional train-
that provides proof of education and special training ing and the passing of state boards.
in marriage and family therapy. Graduate education ● Marriage and family counselors typically have a mas-
from an accredited program in social work, psychol- ter’s degree and additional training to be eligible
ogy, psychiatry, or human development, coupled for state board exams.
with a license in that field, ensures that the clinician
● Social workers have master’s degrees requiring at
has recieved necessary education and training. It also least two years of graduate study plus additional
training to be eligible for state board exams.
offers the consumer recourse if questionable or uneth-
● Pastoral counselors are clergy who have special train-
ical practices occur. However, this recourse is available
ing in addition to their religious studies.
only if the practitioner holds a valid license issued by
the state in which he or she practices. Mental health Financial considerations may be one consideration
workers belong to any one of several professions: when selecting which one of the preceding to see.
256 Chapter Seven
Typically, the more training a professional has, the effective, those involved should be willing to cooperate.
more he or she will charge for services. Additional logistical questions, such as the number and
A therapist can be found through a referral from a frequency of sessions, depend on the type of therapy.
physician, school counselor, family, friend, clergy, or At any time during the therapeutic process, one
the state department of mental health. In any case, it has the right to stop or change therapists. Before
is important to meet personally with the counselor doing so, however, one should ask oneself whether
to decide if he or she is right for you. Besides inquir- his or her discomfort is personal or has to do with
ing about his or her basic professional qualifications, the techniques or personality of the therapist. This
it is important to feel comfortable with this person, should be discussed with the therapist before making
to decide whether your value and belief systems are a change. Finally, if one believes that therapy is not
compatible, and to assess his or her psychological benefiting him or her, a change in therapists seems
orientation. Shopping for the right counselor may be necessary.
as important a decision as deciding to enter counsel- If we fail to communicate, we are likely to turn
ing in the first place. our relationships into empty facades, with each
Marriage or partnership counseling has a variety of person acting a role rather than revealing his or her
approaches: individual counseling focuses on one part- deepest self. But communication is learned behav-
ner at a time, joint marital counseling involves both ior. If we have learned how not to communicate, we
people in the relationship, and family systems therapy can learn how to communicate. Communication will
includes as many family members as possible. Regard- allow us to maintain and expand ourselves and our
less of the approach, all share the premise that, to be relationships.
Summary
● A common complaint of married couples is that they disclose more of their thoughts and feelings, and
don’t communicate or don’t communicate well. more accurately and effectively communicate.
● Communication includes both verbal and nonverbal ● In marital communication, wives send clearer, less
communication. For the meaning of communication ambiguous messages; send more positive, more
to be clear, verbal and nonverbal messages must agree. negative, and fewer neutral messages; and take more
● The functions of nonverbal communication are to active roles in arguments than husbands do.
convey interpersonal attitudes, express emotions, and ● Demand–withdraw communication is common among
handle the ongoing interaction. heterosexual couples. One partner, more often the
● Proximity, eye contact, and touch are three of the woman, will raise an issue for discussion, and the
most important kinds of nonverbal communication. other partner, more likely the man, will withdraw
from the conversation instead of attempting to
● Much nonverbal communication, such as levels of communicate.
touching, varies across cultures and between women
● Demand–withdraw patterns are found commonly in
and men.
the United States and many other cultures.
● Nonverbal communication patterns can reveal
● Demand–withdraw patterns may be a reflection of
whether a relationship is healthy or troubled.
the relative power of each partner, of gender social-
● Gender differences have been identified in both ization, or even of biological differences between
verbal and nonverbal communication. women and men in their reactions to conflict.
● How well a couple communicates before marriage ● Satisfying sexual relationships requires effective
can be an important predictor of later marital satisfac- sexual communication.
tion. Self-disclosure before marriage is related to rela- ● Some topics are more highly charged and more sensi-
tionship satisfaction later. tive to discuss.
● Some problems in marital communication first arise ● Barriers to communication include the traditional
during cohabitation. male gender role; personal reasons, such as feelings
● Research indicates that happily married couples of inadequacy; the fear of conflict; and an absence of
engage in less frequent and less destructive conflict, self-awareness.
● Self-disclosure requires trust, the belief in the reliabil- ● Conflict can have effects on the mental and physical
ity and integrity of a person. Trust influences the way health of spouses or partners, the health of the rela-
you are likely to interpret ambiguous or unexpected tionship, and the well-being of the children.
messages from another person. ● Happily married couples use certain techniques to re-
● Feedback is the ongoing process in which participants solve conflict, including summarizing, paraphrasing,
and their messages create a given result and are subse- validating, and clarifying. Unhappy couples use con-
quently modified by the result. frontation, complaining, and defensiveness.
● Power is the ability or potential ability to influence ● Conflict resolution may be achieved through negotia-
another person or group. There are six types of tion in three ways: agreement as a freely given gift,
marital power: coercive, reward, expert, legitimate, bargaining, and coexistence.
referent, and informational. ● Forgiveness is an important part of efforts to restore
● There are a variety of explanations for relationship trust and rebuild relationship harmony. It is posi-
power. One prominent idea, the principle of least tively associated with both relationship satisfaction
interest, is that the person who has the least invested and stability (i.e., longevity).
in the relationship is, as a result, more powerful.
Resource-based theories of power fail to account for
●
why women don’t gain power as much as men do,
Key Terms
even when they bring in more of the financial re- assertiveness 247 nonbasic conflicts 242
sources that couples require.
basic conflicts 242 nonverbal
● Theories that focus on decision making as indica- communication 223
contempt 224
tors of power may miss more covert expressions of
demand–withdraw personal space 225
power.
communication 231 power 237
● Self-described equal (or egalitarian) couples often
still reveal power differences and inequalities that feedback 236 principle of least
more often favor men. interest 239
gatekeeping 239
proximity 225
● Conflict is natural in intimate relationships. Basic con- homogamous 243
flicts challenge fundamental rules; nonbasic conflicts do relative love and need
honeymoon effect 229
not threaten basic assumptions and may be negotiable. theory 239
hostile conflict 246
● People handle anger in relationships by suppressing resource theory of
or venting it. When anger arises, it is useful to think intimate zone 225 power 240
of it as a signal that change is necessary. marital heterogamy 243 self-silencing 242
● Among heterosexual couples, women have greater marital paradigm 246 trust 235
awareness of the emotional quality of the relation-
ship and are more likely to initiate discussion of con-
tested issues. Men are more likely to approach conflict RESOURCES ON THE WEB
from a task-oriented stance or to withdraw.
Book Companion Website
● Hostile conflict, characterized by frequent heated
arguments, name-calling, and/or an unwillingness to www.cengage.com/sociology/strong
listen to each other, is a particularly strong predictor Prepare for quizzes and exams with online resources—
of eventual divorce. including tutorial quizzes, a glossary, interactive flash
● Major sources of conflict include sex, money, and cards, crossword puzzles, self-assessments, virtual
housework. explorations, and more.
258 Chapter Seven

(Bryan Strong, Christine DeVault, Theodore F. Cohe (BookFi)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Bryan Strong, Christine DeVault, Theodore F. Cohe (BookFi)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Bryan Strong, Christine DeVault, Theodore F. Cohe (BookFi)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7

© Hitoshi Nishimura/Getty Images/Taxi Japan

Communication, Power, and Conflict

What Do YOU Think? Are the following statements TRUE or FALSE?

T F 1 Conflict and intimacy go hand in hand in intimate relationships.

T F 2 Touching is one of the most significant means of communication.

T F 3 Avoiding conflict is the best way to sustain intimacy.

T F 9 The meaning conveyed through nonverbal communication is precise and unambiguous.

T F 10 Wives tend to give more negative messages than husbands.

222 Chapter Seven

Popular Culture: Staying Connected with Technology

Communication, Power, and Conflict 223

224 Chapter Seven

Proximity, Eye Contact, and Touch

touch. Awareness of the ways in which such forms

Communication, Power, and Conflict 225

226 Chapter Seven

Communication, Power, and Conflict 227

Gender Differences in Partner

228 Chapter Seven

Communication, Power, and Conflict 229

In studying 92 couples who were in their first two

230 Chapter Seven

unacceptable. Instead, she raises the subject, voices her

Communication, Power, and Conflict 231

232 Chapter Seven

Relationship doubts (possibility of divorce) 4.58

Disrespectful behavior (lying, rudeness) 4.50

Extramarital intimacy boundary issues (use of pornography, jealousy) 4.42

Excessive or inappropriate display of anger (yelling, attacking) 4.25

Sexual interaction 4.17

Lack of communication (refusal to talk) 4.00

In-laws and extended family 3.83

Confusing, erratic, emotional behavior 3.75

Poor communication skills (being unclear or hard to understand) 3.46

*1 ! extremely easy; 5 ! extremely difficult.

Communication, Power, and Conflict 233

234 Chapter Seven

partner will not do something that will hurt us, such

Communication, Power, and Conflict 235

236 Chapter Seven

Communication, Power, and Conflict 237

238 Chapter Seven

Communication, Power, and Conflict 239

240 Chapter Seven

Communication, Power, and Conflict 241

© Ales Mares-Manton/Asia Images/photolibrary

242 Chapter Seven

Communication, Power, and Conflict 243

244 Chapter Seven

Communication, Power, and Conflict 245

246 Chapter Seven

Communication, Power, and Conflict 247

248 Chapter Seven

*Numbers represent duration of marriage.

Table 7.3 Frequency of Reporting Areas

Range: (1) “never a problem” to (5) “very often a problem”

Communication, Power, and Conflict 249

250 Chapter Seven