Couples who say "we" have a better shot at resolving conflicts and marital issues

By Yasmin Anwar, Media Relations 

A new study from the University of California, Berkeley, suggests that spouses who use "we-ness" language are better able to resolve conflicts than those who don't.

UC Berkeley researchers analyzed conversations between 154 middle-aged and older couples about points of disagreement in their marriages and found that those who used pronouns such as "we," "our" and "us" behaved more positively toward one another and showed less physiological stress. Marital issues are more easily resolved with a "we" attitude.

In contrast, couples who emphasized marital issues that arise from their "separateness" by using pronouns such as "I," "me" and "you" were found to be less satisfied in their marriages. This marital approach was especially true for older couples. Their use of separateness pronouns was most strongly linked to unhappy marriages, according to the study.

Moreover, the study found that older couples identified more as "we" than did their middle-aged counterparts, suggesting that facing obstacles and overcoming challenges together over the long haul, including raising families, may give couples a greater sense of shared identity.

"Individuality is a deeply ingrained value in American society, but, at least in the realm of marriage, being part of a 'we' is well worth giving up a bit of 'me,'" said UC Berkeley psychology professor Robert Levenson, a co-author of the study published last semester in the journal Psychology and Aging.

Previous studies have established that the use of "we-ness" or "separateness" language is a strong indicator of marital satisfaction in younger couples. These latest findings, however, take this several steps further by showing how powerful this correlation is in more established couples, linking it to the emotions and physiological responses that occur when spouses either team up or become polarized in the face of disagreements, researchers said.

"The use of 'we' language is a natural outgrowth of a sense of partnership, of being on the same team, and confidence in being able to face problems together," said study co-author Benjamin Seider, a graduate student in psychology at UC Berkeley.

In addition to Seider and Levenson, co-authors of the marital issues study, "We Can Work It Out: Age Differences in Relational Pronouns, Physiology and Behavior in Marital Conflict," are Gilad Hirschberger and Kristin Nelson, who conducted their research while at UC Berkeley's Institute of Personality and Social Research.

Suppose you are at a busy playground and you hear an 11-year-old using language he didn't learn on Sesame Street. There are plenty of other adults around, but, apparently, not this child's parents. Do you intervene? Does anyone?

WSU sociologist Christine Horne is pretty sure the answer is, "It depends." Many factors might go into your decision, but the key variable isn't how offensive the language is, it's who else is around.

Horne develops her theory that people sanction because they want to look good to others.

Further, her research indicates that the more cohesive or interdependent the group, the more likely people are to sanction bad behavior.

So, in the playground scenario, Horne's theory suggests that if you are at the park by yourself or with a rough group of characters with similar vocabularies, you might not get involved. But, if you are at the park with a group of like-minded friends, you are much more likely to take a stand. It's not just that your friends will back you up, but also that they will think well of you and the social ties between you will be strengthened.

• Why did the Chinese enforce the cultural norm of foot binding for centuries, even though it produced no tangible benefits and much pain and anguish?
  
• Why did Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet sign the 1988 International Convention Against Torture, the very agreement that allowed him to be arrested and prosecuted a decade later?
  
• Even more dramatic, why would the Norse in Greenland in the 1400s perish as a civilization rather than break a cultural norm against eating certain kinds of seafood?

According to her theory, people will act in ways that damage their personal interests if it means their ties to a particular social group will be strengthened. And, she suggests, one of the best ways to strengthen your ties to a particular group is to help enforce the norms of that group by punishing outliers.

In the experiments, Horne manipulated the "cost" of punishing other people, the "reward" for punishing, and the interdependence of the group. When the social rewards were high, people were likely to punish.

In addition to presenting the experimental evidence, Horne uses her theory to explore issues as diverse as the enforcement of fidelity, political correctness, Amish rejection of Social Security, and education policy.

Source:  "The Rewards of Punishment: A Relational Theory of Norm Enforcement," Horne's book in which she  discusses her theory of norms enforcement with multiple real world examples, presents data from laboratory experiments that test the theory, and then explores the implications for developing effective public policy.

Newswise, Inc.

People with relatively extreme opinions may be more willing to publicly share their views than those with more moderate views, according to a new study.

The key is that the extremists have to believe that more people share their views than actually do, the research found.

Social and Political Repercussions

The results may offer one possible explanation for our fractured political climate in the United States, where extreme liberal and conservative opinions often seem to dominate.

"When people with extreme views have this false sense that they are in the majority, they are more willing to express themselves," said Kimberly Rios Morrison, co-author of the study and assistant professor of communication at Ohio State University.

Group Dynamics on Viewpoints

How do people with extreme views believe they are in the majority? This can happen in groups that tend to lean moderately in one direction on an issue. Those that take the extreme version of their group's viewpoint may believe that they actually represent the true views of their group, Morrison said.

One example is views about alcohol use among college students.

In a series of studies, Morrison and her co-author found that college students who were extremely pro-alcohol were more likely to express their opinions than others, even though most students surveyed were moderate in their views about alcohol use.

"Students who were stridently pro-alcohol tended to think that their opinion was much more popular than it actually was," she said. "They seemed to buy into the stereotype that college students are very comfortable with alcohol use."

The average student's views were near the mid-point of the scale -- but most rated the typical Stanford student as more pro-alcohol than themselves.

"There's this stereotype that college students are very pro-alcohol, and even most college students believe it," Morrison said. "Most students think of themselves as less pro-alcohol than average."

Morrison conducted this study with Dale Miller of Stanford University. Their research appeared in a recent issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

In the next two studies, students again rated themselves on similar scales that revealed how pro-alcohol they were. They were then asked how willing they would be to discuss their views on alcohol use with other Stanford students.

Change Advocacy?

In general, students who were the most pro-alcohol were the most likely to say they wanted to express their views, compared to those with moderate or anti-alcohol views.

However, in one study the researchers added a twist: they gave participants fake data which indicated that other Stanford students held relatively conservative, anti-alcohol views.

Willing to Stick Your Neck Out?

When extremely pro-alcohol students viewed this data, they were less likely to say they were willing to discuss alcohol usage with their fellow students.

"It is only when they have this sense that they are in the majority that extremely pro-alcohol students are more willing to express their views on the issue," Morrison said.

However, students who had more extreme anti-alcohol views were not more likely to want to express their views, even when they saw the data that suggested a majority of their fellow students agreed with them.

"Their views that they are in the minority may be so deeply entrenched that it is difficult to change just based on our one experiment," she said. "In addition, they don't have the experience expressing their opinions on the subject like the pro-alcohol extremists do, so they may not feel as comfortable."

Extreme Versions of the Group's Actual Views

This finding shows that not all extremists are more willing to share their opinions - only those who hold more extreme versions of the group's actual views.

These results have implications for how Americans view the political opinions of their communities and their political parties, Morrison said.

Take as an example a community that tends to be moderate politically, but leans slightly liberal.

People with more extreme liberal views in the community may be more likely than others to attend publicly visible protests and display bumper stickers espousing their liberal views, because they think the community supports them.

"Everyone else sees these extreme opinions being expressed on a regular basis and they may eventually come to believe their community is more liberal than it actually is," Morrison said. "The same process could occur in moderately conservative communities.

The Social Change Process

"You have a cycle that feeds on itself: the more you hear these extremists expressing their opinions, the more you are going to believe that those extreme beliefs are normal for your community."

A similar process may occur in groups such as political parties. Moderately conservative people who belong to the Republican Party, for example, may believe that people with extremely conservative views represent their party, because those are the opinions they hear most often. However, that may not be true.

The Silent Majority...the Vocal Minority

Morrison said when she and her colleagues were thinking about doing this study, they had in mind the phrase about the "silent majority" in the United States, which was popularized by President Richard Nixon and his vice-president, Spiro Agnew. They referred to the silent majority as the people who supported the war in Vietnam, but who were overshadowed by the "vocal minority" against the war.

While there may not be one monolithic silent majority in the United States, Morrison said this study suggests that the minority may indeed be more vocal in some cases.

Source: Newswise

Some say that violence is part of the American psyche...but it doesn't have to be.  We need practical solutions for our stress, aggression and communication habits.  There ARE better solutions than violence.

Violence between couples is usually the result of a calculated decision-making process and the partner inflicting violence will do so only as long as the price to be paid is not too high.

Loss of Control Differs at Home and Work

This is the conclusion of a new study by Dr. Eila Perkis at the University of Haifa. "The violent partner might conceive his or her behavior as a 'loss of control', but the same individual, unsurprisingly, would not lose control in this way with a boss or friends," she explains.

Law-abiding, Normal People...Outside!

In this new study, carried out at the University of Haifa's School of Social Work, Dr. Perkis examined intimate violence based on the fact that in most cases the offending partner is a law-abiding individual living a normative life outside of the family unit. Dr. Perkis says that in most cases the couple continues living together and sustaining a shared family unit, so it is important that we learn to understand the dynamics of such partnerships in order to treat them.

Family Dynamics of Intimate Violence

First Dr. Perkis divided intimate violence into four levels of severity:

1. verbal aggression;
   
2. threats of physical aggression;
   
3. moderate physical aggression; and
   
4. severe physical aggression
   

Verbal Violence Escalates

"These four levels follow one another in an escalating sequence; someone who uses verbal violence might well move on over time to threatening physical attack, and from there it is only downhill towards acting on the threat," she explains. Dr. Perkis warns however, that the results of this study should not be correlated to cases of murder, since the dynamics between couples in such cases are different and such offenses are not included in the chain of violent acts being examined.

Solving Conflicts

The researcher found that acting on each type of violence is calculated, such that the violence constitutes a tool for solving conflict between the partners.

"Neither of the couple sits down and plans when he or she will swear or lash out at the other, but there is a sort of silent agreement standing between the two on what limits of violent behavior are 'ok', where the red line is drawn, and where behavior beyond that could be dangerous," she explains.

She adds that when speaking of one-sided physical violence, most often carried out by men, the violent side understands that for a slap, say, he will not pay a very heavy price, but for harsher violence that is not included in the 'normative' dynamic between them, he might well have to pay a higher price and will therefore keep himself from such behavior. 

Leaving or Reporting the Incident...Is a Heavy Price to Pay!

"A 'heavy price' could be the partner's leaving or reporting the incident to the police or the workplace. As such, it can be said that violent behavior is not the result of loss of control and both sides are aware of where the red line is drawn, even if such an agreement has never been spoken between them," she says.

Better Tools for Solving Conflict

According to Dr. Perkis, it is important to point out that use of violence is not a normative behavior; it is illegal, and of course, immoral. Therefore, it is only the violent partner who is culpable for the act. Nevertheless, once we understand that violence is being used as a tool for solving conflict between a couple that is interested in staying together, we can help them subdue such behavior by providing them with better tools to cope with the source of tension and conflict in their lives together.

"In couples therapy for partners who express the wish to stay together, therapy must be focused on identifying illegitimate motives, such as nonnormative tactics for solving conflict, and assisting the couple in acknowledging their ability to convert destructive patterns into effective ones and ultimately to run their lives better," the researcher concludes.

Solutions:

• Identify illegitimate motives
• Tactics for solving conflicts
• Ability to change destructive patterns into effective ones
• Run lives better