The Dyadic Level

Dyads, like social groups, develop histo­ries and patterns of behavior that influence their conflicts. Siegert and Stamp (1994) ref­erenced the effect of couples’ shared history on their subsequent conflict behavior when they discussed romantic partners’ “first big fight.” These researchers found that couples who survived their first big fight distin­guished it from other fights based, in part, on the lack of shared history that preceded it.

The patterns of behavior that couples enact also create a context that may shape the meaning partners assign to conflicts. For example, romantic partners who routinely express affection to each other appear to be less susceptible to any adverse impact of neg­ativity and demand/withdraw on relational satisfaction (Caughlin & Huston, 2002; Huston & Chorost, 1994). Thus, the mean­ing assigned to negative behaviors appears to be influenced by the behavioral context that couples create together.

Moreover, this behavioral context need not be limited to behaviors that are usually thought of as communication. Caughlin (2002) argued that one reason why some couples may increase their satisfaction after engaging in demand/withdraw episodes is that the person being asked to change may do so over time, which would influence the ultimate meaning of the conversation. For example, if a husband withdraws while being nagged to pick up his dirty socks, the actual interaction is likely to be unpleasant and associated with concurrent dissatisfac­tion. However, if this husband begins to put his dirty laundry away without being nagged (perhaps even as a strategy to avoid being nagged again), this may lead the wife to reappraise the conflict episode, down­playing its importance compared with the changed behavior. Furthermore, once the husband has demonstrated a willingness to change despite engaging in avoidance, sub­sequent episodes of demand/withdraw might be viewed differently.