Positivity and Conflict
As a maintenance strategy, positivity can affect conflict in various ways. As indicated above, positivity provides a source for building a nurturing relational climate that encases conflict when they arise.
Positivity as a maintenance behavior includes: being upbeat and cheerful though one does not want to, asking how the partner’s day has been, being spontaneous, doing favors for the other, complimenting the other, and so forth (Stafford & Canary, 1991). Moreover, positivity has been found to be a strong predictor of liking, commitment, and relational satisfaction (e.g., Canary et al., 2002). Also, one can use positivity within conflict interaction, for example, by acknowledging the partner, seeking areas of agreement, offering statements of affection, and the like. We focus on two ways that positivity complements conflict behaviors to predict relational quality: positivity that occurs outside of conflict and during conflict.Researchers have recently noted that the combination of positive behaviors and conflict communication predicts divorce. For example, Caughlin and Huston (2006) summarized their program of research on the topic and argued that two factors predict divorce: affection and antagonism. They argued that high levels of affection are needed at the outset of marriage as well as over the course of marriage. Not surprisingly, high levels of antagonism disrupt marriages. These authors examined couples who had been married 14 years and they found that the combination of positive affect and antagonism combined to predict stability and relational quality.
Stable and satisfied couples experience a high amount of positive affect and a low amount of antagonism. These people remained together at the end of the study (14 years). Conversely, unstable and dissatisfied couples have a high amount of antagonism but low affection.
As one might expect, such marriages did not survive beyond two years. Next, stable but dissatisfied partners remain together after 13 years. These partners experience above average antagonism but, relative to stable and satisfied couples, a low degree of affection. The lifeless marriage represents a fourth type wherein partners divorce between 2—7 years; lifeless marriage contains an average amount of antagonism but, of all couple types, the lowest levels of affection. Similar to the lifeless couple, a disenchanted marriage contains an average amount of antagonism. However, at the beginning of the marriage they enjoy a high degree of affection; but such affection gradually and clearly declines over the years. Disenchanted partners tend to divorce between 7—14 years of marriage. Note how antagonism and affection can operate in tandem; for instance, too much antagonism coupled with too little affection predict early divorce, whereas declines in affection (but not antagonism) predict later divorce.Examining how couples manage conflict, Gottman and Levenson (2000, 2002) found that different behaviors predicted the timing of divorce. More precisely, they found that expressiveness and negative behavior during conflict management predicted divorce the first seven years of marriage. Similar to Caughlin and Huston’s research, a high amount of negativity, in particular, predicts early divorce. After seven years, however, decreases in positive emotional expression prompts people to leave. Gottman and Levenson (2002) noted that, after seven years the primary behavioral predictors of divorce revealed an “affectless” relationship—where a lifeless bond exists between partners. Gottman and Levenson (2002) concluded, “Intense marital conflict likely makes it difficult to stay in the marriage for long, but its absence makes marriage somewhat more acceptable. Nonetheless, the absence of positive affect eventually takes its toll” (p. 743). Accordingly, being positive during even routine discussions is vital to a lasting marriage, but a lack of such positivity erodes marriage even after the effects of negative conflict have done their damage.
| Turn | Speaker | Message |
| 225 | Wife | And you might ask nicely just as many times as you do unnicely [sic] and end-up with the same results. Whether you ask them five times... |
| 226 | Husband | I don’t agree with that, because I ask them once nicely and |
they don’t comply, and then I bark and then they comply.
| 227 | Wife | And you know what? You taught them | “I | don’t have to |
| comply unless dad barks at me. Until dad’s | voice changes and | |||
| he’s pissed, then I have to comply!” And you’ve trained them to do that. | ||||
| 228 | Husband | No. | ||
| 229 | Wife | What you have to do is retrain them... them to show we’re serious. | we | have to retrain |
| 230 | Husband | How do we do that? | ||
| 231 | Wife | One day at a time. | ||
| 232 | Husband | That is not an answer. | ||
Note that this couple reaches no satisfactory outcome and lacks positive emotional tone.
In contrast, see how this couple flirts with each other during a conflict about how much affection exists between partners.
| Turn | Speaker | Message |
| 12 | Husband | Intimate affection, uh, I’ve been described as a sex maniac from time to time.... Uh, I like sex and sometimes, you know I’m not complaining—I think we have a good sex life—but I’d like to see a little bit more of it every now and then. |
| 13 | Wife | Well, um, I guess that would probably fall back to being so discouraged with my job and being depressed over my job and bringing that home. And I should not bring that home. But I have a lot of responsibility and a lot of stress, and they wear me down. I have asked to step down and they will not allow me to do it. And so it does depress me, which makes me tired, and I don’t have the proper energy and motivation sometimes. But I don’t think that we have an inactive sex life, either. |
| 14 | Husband | No, not by any means, but... |
| 15 | Wife | I just think you have a high level of testosterone and I’m just so cute that you’re very turned on by me. And I can’t help that. |
| 16 | Husband | (laughs) Well that’s, that’s all true, that’s very true. But uh, I guess that goes back to the first issue of the job change. It affects, it affects a lot of things, and that’s one of them. |
| 17 | Wife | And I’ll agree with that. I’ll try to work on that. |
| 18 | Husband | That’d be good. |
In turn 12, the husband states his desire for more sex but minimizes its relational impact by stating “you know I’m not complaining—I think we have a good sex life.” The wife then blames their decreased sex on her own work pressures but also discloses in a nonhostile manner “I don’t have the proper energy and motivation sometimes.
But I don’t think that we have an inactive sex life, either.” And the husband immediately agrees with this assessment (turn 14). Then notice the previous conversation above differs from this latter example: it contains some creativity; that is, the woman throws her husband in a loop with a teasing and provocative statement in turn 15, which reduces the tension. Importantly, compare the final comment by the husband in this example (“That’d be good”) to the final statement by the husband in the previous example (“That is not an answer”). Whereas the former issue ended in a deadlock, the more recent issue ends on a positive note. Ending a conflict discussion in an affectively positive manner provides each partner reason for hope, a sense of well-being, and relief.From the research on positivity as a productive conflict management strategy, we present the following:
Conclusion 3.4: Positivity as an ongoing maintenance strategy coincides strongly with relational stability and quality.
Conclusion 3.5: Positivity during conflict proportionally diffuses the effects of negative conflict tactics; that is, the association between the ratio of positive/negative communication is strongly correlated with relational stability and quality.
Suggestion 3.4: Use relational maintenance strategies, including positivity, on a routine basis.
Suggestion 3.5: Use negotiation tactics, especially those in the support other category (e.g., agreement, approval, positive mind-reading, etc.).
Although one might believe that high levels of conflict episodes prevent partners from engaging in positive episodes at other times, Fincham and Linfield (1997) found this to not be true. Rather, engagement in joint activities, supportive messages, and positivity counteracts the effects of competitive conflict. More importantly, the effects of countering conflict through interactive and interesting shared activities lead to higher levels of relational stability and relational quality. Shared activities help increase positive emotions and prompts partners to polish their constructive communication skills. Showing supportiveness to one’s partner underscores one’s personal commitment to the partner’s well-being. Finally, positivity both within and outside conflict episodes promotes a nurturing relational environment. In brief, the management of conflict does not occur in a relational vacuum but rather can be complemented by proactive and positive behaviors that help to create a healthy and responsive relational environment for strategic conflict.