Holman and Jarvis (2003) conducted a study to further examine the research and findings of a previous study (Gottman 1994a, 1999) on conflict styles within relationships (couples). Their goal was to identify the different couple-conflict styles using survey data, and to find out how the conflict type affects relationship satisfaction, stability, communication, and conflict strategies. They used as their guide Gottman's (1994a, 1999) findings splitting couples into two main categories and then 3 sub-categories based upon their approaches to conflict interaction.
Regulated couples, who have more positive than negative interactions, can be split into 3 sub-categories: validating, volatile, and conflict-avoiding (Gottman). Non-regulated couples simply have far more negative than positive interactions and hostile members. "Non-regulated couples are significantly more likely to use negative processes (criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and withdrawal) than are regulated couples" (Holman and Jarvis 268). They also found that couple-conflict style greatly influenced relationship satisfaction and quality.
Holman and Jarvis' (2003) findings support productive conflict styles and concepts as preferable in relationships. All relationships have conflict, but it is how the individual chooses to react to/manage that conflict that determines not only how their partner views them, but their overall satisfactions in the relationship. Regulated couples, who regularly use productive conflict styles, report a much higher satisfaction and quality of relationship. Non-regulated couples resort to destructive cycles and negative processes, thereby causing dissatisfaction, poor relationship quality, and possibly further conflicts.
The principles and theories addressed by Holman and Jarvis (2003) can be applied to many of our day to day interactions and relationships. In almost every instance, being cooperative and respectful of others leads to more positive interactions than being hostile or uncooperative. However, as we can glean from the study, it is not necessary to completely change your personality or interaction style.
Simply being open-minded and taking pieces from other conflict management styles to apply to your own can be very successful as well. The most important thing to remember is that every relationship has the potential to become negative or have negative moments, so we must be mindful of the strategies we use and understand when/if it is time to change them, or borrow from other strategies. In this way, our relationships, personal or professional, can be as positive and long-lasting as possible.
References
Holman, T. and Jarvis, M. (2003). Hostile, volatile, avoiding, and validating couple-conflict types: An investigation of Gottman's couple-conflict types. Personal Relationships, Vol 10 (2), 267-282.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
First Blog Assignment
http://www.ingrimayne.com/econ/IndividualGroup/TitForTat.html
For this first blog assignment, I chose to focus on the tit-for-tat strategy (TFT). The information in the link above uses TFT to examine the example of a brother and sister deciding individually whether to loaf or work hard on the chores their mother has given them so that they are free to play. TFT combines compensation and reciprocity; player A basically sees what player B does and follows suit, matching their moves.
TFT encourages cooperation and discourages exploitation. "If Ingrid uses a tit-for-tat strategy in our example above, she will work hard the first week. If she then discovers that Edward has loafed, she will loaf the next week. If, after he realizes that he cannot exploit her, he becomes ready to cooperate, a tit-for-tat strategy is ready to begin cooperating." (Robert Schenk, Tit-for-Tat) One very interesting thing to me about this particular example is that it doesn't really offer the opportunity for the competition found in many TFT studies. There is no benefit here for the siblings to be competitive since they have the same end goal: finishing their work so they can play. By requiring both children to work equally, their mother is encouraging cooperation, or a "virtuous cycle."
For this first blog assignment, I chose to focus on the tit-for-tat strategy (TFT). The information in the link above uses TFT to examine the example of a brother and sister deciding individually whether to loaf or work hard on the chores their mother has given them so that they are free to play. TFT combines compensation and reciprocity; player A basically sees what player B does and follows suit, matching their moves.
TFT encourages cooperation and discourages exploitation. "If Ingrid uses a tit-for-tat strategy in our example above, she will work hard the first week. If she then discovers that Edward has loafed, she will loaf the next week. If, after he realizes that he cannot exploit her, he becomes ready to cooperate, a tit-for-tat strategy is ready to begin cooperating." (Robert Schenk, Tit-for-Tat) One very interesting thing to me about this particular example is that it doesn't really offer the opportunity for the competition found in many TFT studies. There is no benefit here for the siblings to be competitive since they have the same end goal: finishing their work so they can play. By requiring both children to work equally, their mother is encouraging cooperation, or a "virtuous cycle."
Starting out...
I'm a returning student who hasn't been in college in 10 years! I'm excited to get back to work and finish successfully. I'm a Communication major and I plan to get my certificate for Teaching English as a Foreign Language so I can eventually go overseas to work and live for awhile. Dr. Betz's Resolving Conflict class is valuable to me, not only to complete my degree, but to obtain real-world interpresonal communication skills. Everyone has a little (or a lot!) confict in their lives and the information I'm getting in this class is useful to anyone, regardless of major.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)