专题

浪漫关系中青年个体在冲突情境下的权力应对及叙事特征

  • 高诗媛 ,
  • 张云婕 ,
  • 严文华 ,
  • 刘诗雨 ,
  • 肖若兰 ,
  • 旭古日根 ,
  • 刘彦汐 ,
  • 许多
展开
  • 1华东师范大学心理与认知科学学院,上海 200062;
    2华东师范大学心理与认知科学学院,上海市心理健康与危机干预重点实验室,上海 200062
高诗媛,2023年6月毕业于华东师范大学心理与认知科学学院,获学士学位。2023年进入美国德克萨斯州农工大学攻读工业组织心理学硕士,目前研究方向为组织公平。
#作者对本文有同等贡献和付出
* 严文华,whyan@psy.ecnu.edu.cn

网络出版日期: 2024-10-12

基金资助

横向课题:天然钻石协会

Power Responses and Narrative Characteristics of Young Individuals in Romantic Relationships in Conflict Situations

  • GAO Shiyuan ,
  • ZHANG Yunjie ,
  • YAN Wenhua ,
  • LIU Shiyu ,
  • XIAO Ruolan ,
  • XU Gurigen ,
  • LIU Yanxi ,
  • XU Duo
Expand
  • 1School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062 China;
    2Shanghai Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Psychological Crisis Intervention, Shanghai 200062 China
#Equal contributors
* YAN Wenhua, whyan@psy.ecnu.edu.cn

Online published: 2024-10-12

摘要

目的:探究处于浪漫关系中的青年个体在冲突情境中的权力应对,以及不同权力水平应对者的冲突叙事特征。
方法:选取42名处于恋爱关系中的青年个体,进行半结构化访谈,并采用扎根理论对访谈内容进行分析。
结果:高权力应对的个体对浪漫关系更具破坏性,容易激化冲突,使自己和/或伴侣经历负面情绪;低权力应对的个体兼具主动性和被动性,以及破坏性和建设性;平等应对的个体对浪漫关系更具建设性,利于解决冲突,修复关系。不同权力水平应对者在叙述冲突情境时有所不同,根据对认知、情绪和干涉成分的叙述有无,共可分为六种情况。
结论:浪漫关系中的个体在冲突情境下存在不同水平的权力应对。他们在叙述冲突时也会有特定的倾向和成分缺失;主动性、建设性的行为更有助于解决冲突。

本文引用格式

高诗媛 , 张云婕 , 严文华 , 刘诗雨 , 肖若兰 , 旭古日根 , 刘彦汐 , 许多 . 浪漫关系中青年个体在冲突情境下的权力应对及叙事特征[J]. 心理学通讯, 2024 , 7(1) : 26 -35 . DOI: 10.12100/j.issn.2096-5494.224005

Abstract

Objective: To explore the power responses of young individuals in romantic relationships in conflict situations, as well as the conflict narratives that characterize responders with different levels of power.
Methods: A total of 42 young individuals in romantic relationships were selected for semi-structured interviews, and the content of the interviews was analyzed using grounded theory.
Results: Individuals with high power responses are more destructive to the romantic relationship and tend to intensify the conflict, causing themselves and/or their partner to experience negative emotions. Individuals with low power responses exhibit both proactive and reactive behaviors, which can be destructive or constructive, Individuals with egalitarian responses are more constructive to the romantic relationship, facilitating conflict resolution and relationship repair. Participants at different power levels have distinct descriptions of conflict situations, which can be classified into six types based on the presence or absence of cognitive, emotional, and intervention components.
Conclusions: Individuals in romantic relationships have different levels of power responses to conflict, each with specific tendencies and missing components in their conflict narratives. Proactive and constructive behaviors are more helpful in resolving conflicts.

参考文献

[1] 白晶, 李林, 宋小青, 宋静静. (2022). 亲密关系中自我牺牲的动机及其积极影响. 心理技术与应用, 10(6), 372-384. doi:10.16842/j.cnki.issn2095-5588.2022.06.006
[2] 成绮莉, 门辉华, 刘路遥. (2021). 权力感对亲密关系满意度的影响: 社会比较倾向和冲突应对方式的链式中介作用. 中国健康心理学杂志, 29(12), 1900-1906. doi:10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2021.12.031
[3] 冯译, 陆爱桃, 王晓玲, 邵玉兰, 苏丹晓. (2013). 大学生情侣依恋、情侣冲突与支持间的关系研究. 惠州学院学报(社会科学版), 33(2), 100-104. doi:10.16778/j.cnki.1671-5934.2013.02.021
[4] 何赏赏, 吴宝沛. (2021). 依恋回避对愤怒抑制的影响: 亲密关系权力感的中介作用. 心理技术与应用, 9(5), 300-305, 312. doi:10.16842/j.cnki.issn2095-5588.2021.05.005
[5] 刘洁. (2021). 青年女性的亲密关系冲突及家庭生活. 社会科学论坛, (3), 127-138. doi:10.14185/j.cnki.issn1008-2026.2021.03.011
[6] 王青. (2017). 权力取向还是平等取向:亲密关系中的核心议题. 改革与开放, (22), 74-75. doi:10.16653/j.cnki.32-1034/f.2017.22.034
[7] 严磊, 佐斌, 孙山, 吴漾, 吴月鹏. (2016). 情感一致性对刻板印象激活的影响. 心理学探新, 36(6), 535-540.
[8] 严文华. (2024). 中国年轻人爱情和婚姻的质性研究:系列论文介绍. 心理学通讯, 7(1), 3-5. doi: 10.12100/j.issn.2096-5494.224002
[9] Anderson, C., & Jennifer, B. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. J Pers Soc Psychol, 83(6), 1362-1377.doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1362
[10] Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2004). Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal conflict. Int J Confl Manage, 15(3), 216-244. doi:10.1108/eb022913
[11] Crane, C. A., & Testa, M. (2014). Daily associations among anger experience and intimate partner aggression within aggressive and nonaggressive community couples. Emotion, 14(5), 985-994. doi:10.1037/a0036884
[12] Fehr B., Baldwin M., Collins L., Patterson S., & Benditt R. (1999). Anger in close relationships: An interpersonal script analysis. Pers Soc Psychol B, 25(3), 29-312. doi: 10.1177/0146167299025003003
[13] Feiring C., Markus J., & Simon V. A. (2020). Romantic conflict narratives in emerging adult couples: Viewpoint and gender matter. Fam Process, 59(1), 127-141. doi:10.1111/famp.12418
[14] Feiring C., Simon V. A., & Markus J. (2018). Narratives about specific romantic conflicts: Gender and associations with conflict beliefs and strategies. J Couns Dev, 96(3), 254-266. doi:10.1002/jcad.12200
[15] Galinsky A. D., Magee J. C., Gruenfeld D. H., Whitson J. A., & Liljenquist K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. J Pers Soc Psychol, 95(6), 1450-1466. doi:10.1037/a0012633
[16] Karney B. R., Hops H., Redding C. A., Reis H. T., Rothman A. J., & Simpson J. A. (2010). A framework for incorporating dyads in models of HIV-prevention. AIDS Behav, 14(2), 189-203. doi:10.1007/s10461-010-9802-0
[17] Kaplar, M. E., & Gordon, A. K. (2004). The enigma of altruistic lying: Perspective differences in what motivates and justifies lie telling within romantic relationships. Pers Relationship, 11(4), 489-507. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00094.x
[18] Kearns, J. N., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Victim and perpetrator accounts of interpersonal transgressions: Self-serving or relationship-serving biases? Pers Soc Psychol B, 31(3), 321-333. doi:10.1177/0146167 204271594
[19] Magee, J. C., & Smith, P. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Pers Soc Psychol Rev, 17(2), 158-186. doi:10.1177/10888683124 72732
[20] Rusbult C. E., Agnew C. R., & Arriaga X. B. (2012). The investment model of commitment processes. In P. A. M. van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 218-231). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd. doi:10.4135/9781446249222.n37
[21] Rusbult C. E., Johnson D. J., & Morrow G. D. (1986a). Determinants and consequences of exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in adult romantic involvements. Hum Relat, 39(1), 45-63. doi:10.1177/001872678603900103
[22] Rusbult C. E., Johnson D. J., & Morrow G. D. (1986b). Impact of couple patterns of problem solving on distress and nondistress in dating relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol, 50(4), 744-753. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.50.4.744
[23] Rusbult, C. E., & Zembrodt, I. M. (1983). Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements: A multidimensional scaling analysis. J Exp Soc Psychol, 19(3), 274-293. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(83)90042-2
[24] Rusbult C. E., Zembrodt I. M., & Gunn L. K. (1982). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. J Pers Soc Psychol, 43(6), 1230-1242. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.43.6. 1230
[25] Sanford, K. (2005). Attributions and anger in early marriage: Wives are event-dependent and husbands are schematic. J Fam Psychol, 19(2), 180-188. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.180
[26] Sanford, K. (2007). Hard and soft emotion during conflict: Investigating married couples and other relationships. Pers Relationship, 14(1), 65-90. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00142.x
[27] Simpson J. A., Farrell A. K., Oriña M. M., & Rothman A. J. (2015). Power and Social Influence in Relationships. In M. Mikulincer, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Vol. 3: Interpersonal Relations (p. 28). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
[28] Woltin K. A., Corneille O., Yzerbyt V. Y., & Förster J. (2011). Narrowing down to open up for other people’s concerns: Empathic concern can be enhanced by inducing detailed processing. J Exp Soc Psychol, 47(2), 418-424. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.11.006
文章导航

/

〈 〉