Relationship Hostages

When we aren't skilled in managing conflict, we sometimes get confused between what we want, and what we think is best.

While the parties are trying to work out an agreement, one side (or both!) may think that a credible threat of ruining the relationship will improve the chances for an agreement. Fear of loss is a powerful motivator, and rejection causes us both psychic and physical pain.

Recent research published in PNAS in 2011 shows how brains process rejection, specifically in the somatosensory processing areas like the insula (Kross, Berman, Mischel, Smith, and Wager 2011). Subjects who had recently suffered an unwanted break up were asked to look at a picture of their ex and consider how they felt about it, while being scanned by a functional MRI. The data was then compared to previous fMRI brain scans of subjects who suffered actual physical pain. The overlap is astounding: 88%!

Social rejection causes an experience of actual, literal physical pain in the brains of the jilted.

When one party in conflict threatens to destroy the relationship if an agreement is not reached, they are threatening to physically hurt the other. It’s not any different than threatening to punch someone if they don’t comply with the demands. This hardly counts as ethical, let alone compassionate, behavior. Now, sometimes in conflict, force needs to be used. But not in most conflict, and, as a general rule of thumb, you should titrate your use of force to the least possible amount to achieve the necessary goals. As an example, police officers may have to use overwhelming force to resolve a hostage crisis, yet they should never pepper spray someone just to issue a parking citation.

Everyone reacts with disgust to, and no one trusts, a bully. Yet we admire tough negotiators who are willing to take a risk in order to achieve an agreement. The line can be finely drawn between the two. It all depends on what the risk is. As negotiators, we should consider the context and the goals. When assessing the need for force, are the goals inherently selfish (I want the most benefit regardless of the other’s interests and needs) or are the goals to bring someone to their senses (I want them to sit down and work with me to achieve an objectively fair solution to the problem)?

In interpersonal conflict, taking the relationship hostage is a tried and true method of forcing the other side to do your bidding. Romantic partners will frequently stop communicating when they feel hurt, ranging in tactics from not talking, to being physically cold, to threatening a break up.

Furthermore, if one side folds, the chances that there will be a defection from the agreement increases. It’s hard enough to stay loyal to a fair agreement, it’s even harder when the acquiescing partner feels the agreement isn’t in their interests, and/or feels taken advantage of.

If you don’t love me, I’ll kick you in the groin. Think about it. Does a knee to the nads ever improve a relationship?

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200412/08/eng20041208_166588.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kross, Ethan, Marc Berman, Walter Mischel, Edward Smith, and Tor Wager. "Social rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108.15 (2011): 6270-6275. Web. 17 Sep. 2012. <http://www.pnas.org/content/108/15/6270.full>.