The Demand-Withdraw Pattern

One pattern ofdirect fighting has received much attention recently—the demand— withdraw pattern. Perhaps the primary reason for this attention concerns how the demand—withdraw pattern summarizes in one exchange how people can be direct and hostile with each other.

These message behaviors clearly coincide with most of the DINN behav­iors. Yet the DINN appears to cover more ground and is consistent with this text. Accordingly, we will describe the various tactics and sequences by using the DINN coding scheme (see Table 2.3).

In showing how direct tactics are countered, the demand—withdraw summa­rizes important information about the ebbs and flows of distributive conflict. An example of this can be found in the literature examining demand-withdrawal pat­terns in married couples, which has found that partners begin to reflect each oth­er’s demands in their own behaviors (e.g., Caughlin & Vangelisti, 2000). In other words, even though one person is unhappy with an issue and complains about it, the other person is more likely to complain as well, even when the second person wants to maintain the way things are.

The following sequence illustrates how specific tactics are used to construct a demand—withdraw pattern. The woman initiates the pattern in turn 1 by propos­ing that her husband listen to her deal, which represents the negotiation tactic of compromise (see Table 2.1). Instead oflistening to her “deal,” the husband responds in a hostile manner that she should cook if she had “you know, kids to feed and stuff.” This message is clearly direct and competitive, and is a hostile imperative. In turn 9, the wife responds with a hostile question that is followed by a rejection of the husband’s argument (we have one child, and he is an adult). The husband counters that the boy is only 16 and cooks for himself “all the time” (a rejection). Finally, in turn 11.1 the wife rejects the legitimacy of the husband’s argument but is interrupted before she can offer another thought (turn 11.2).

[M: You start first. What is your issue?]

F1.1: Cooking meals, let’s just start with cooking meals.

1.2 Okay I’ll make you a deal. I’ll make you a deal on cooking meals.

M2: [loudly] NO! I AM NOT GOING TO STOP WATCHING (brief pause, softer) baseball games just because...

F3.1: [interrupting] No, I wasn’t go to say that.

3.2 I wasn’t going to say that.

M4: It’s not like.... Okay...

F5.1: I mean, do you want to solve the cooking meal problem

5.2 or do we just want to fight about it?

M6: No because...

F7.1: [interrupting] Would you like me to make the meals?

7.2 Then I want something back,

7.3 that’s all.

7.4 I’ll make you a deal.

M8.1: No!

8.2 I think you just do it,

8.3 because it’s your responsibility if you had, you know, kids to feed and stuff.

As the reader can imagine, this conflict continues. But in the next turn the husband reverses his role to demand something from the wife (turn 12.1), which is an interesting ploy. Caughlin and Vangelistfs research (1999, 2000) suggests this switching of roles—in the same interaction—can be demanded by both partners.

The wife then pivots on his demands and re-takes the offensive, which leads to another demand—withdraw segment.

F19.5 I think you just need to see me cook for some reason.

M20: I just, it’s just that I grew up eating nice, full, healthy, well-balanced meals.

F21: You don’t need full meals anymore, Bob—you need little bitty meals.

M22: Don’t say my name. This is going to be broadcast on the internet.

F23.1: (laughing) You don’t need big meals—you need little meals.

F23.2: You need to have salads for dinner.

F23.3: That’s it. I’ll make a salad.

In brief, the demand—withdraw pattern is a major type of negative conflict pattern. This sequence, as do many sequences, represents the use of negative complementarity.