Difficulty: Intermediate | Prerequisites: Attraction and Close Relationships notes (Part 1 and 2). Familiarity with attribution theory is helpful for the conflict-attribution material.
This material covers two sides of social interaction: what happens when close relationships go wrong (conflict, violence, breakup dynamics) and what happens when people step in to help others (bystander intervention, altruism). These topics follow directly from the attraction and relationships lectures, asking what sustains or destroys bonds and what motivates people to act on behalf of strangers. The conflict section introduces Peterson's stage model, the demand-withdraw pattern, the ELVN model and relationship violence. The prosocial section covers Latane and Darley's bystander research, the decision tree for intervention, and the debate between altruism and egoism as motivations for helping.
Conflict in relationships follows a predictable arc (beginnings, middle stages, termination) and can end well (structural improvement) or badly (separation, domination). The demand-withdraw pattern is a common destructive cycle with gendered dynamics. Meanwhile, prosocial behaviour is inhibited by the presence of others (bystander effect) and driven by either genuine empathy or self-interested motives, a distinction at the heart of the altruism-vs.-egoism debate.
Peterson's Model of Conflict
A stage model describing how conflict moves from beginnings (initiating events like criticism, illegitimate demands, rebuffs, cumulative annoyances) through middle stages (escalation, conciliation, negotiation, separation, reconciliation) to termination outcomes ranked from best to worst. Think of it as a roadmap for how arguments start, develop and resolve.
Demand-withdraw pattern (Christensen et al.)
A destructive cycle in which one partner pressures the other for change through demands and complaints, while the other retreats and withdraws. In simple terms, one person pushes, the other shuts down, and the cycle feeds itself.
ELVN Model (Rusbult et al., 1982)
Four responses to relationship conflict mapped on two axes (active/passive and constructive/destructive): Exit (active-destructive), Voice (active-constructive), Loyalty (passive-constructive) and Neglect (passive-destructive).
Bystander effect
The finding that individuals are less likely to help in an emergency when other people are present. In simple terms, the more witnesses, the less likely any one person is to act.
Diffusion of responsibility
The tendency for each person in a group to feel less personally responsible for acting, because they assume someone else will. Think of it as everyone waiting for someone else to go first.
Pluralistic ignorance
A situation in which bystanders look to each other for cues, see no one reacting, and collectively conclude that nothing is wrong. In simple terms, everyone privately thinks something is wrong but publicly acts as though it is fine.
Evaluation apprehension
The fear that other bystanders will judge you negatively if you intervene, especially if it turns out not to be a real emergency.
Altruism
Help given purely for the benefit of the other person, with no expectation of personal gain. Think of it as selfless helping.
Egoism (in helping)
Help given as an instrumental means of benefiting the self, whether through mood improvement, avoiding guilt, or gaining social approval.
Empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson)
The theory that when we feel empathic concern (sympathy, compassion, tenderness) for someone in need, we are motivated to help for purely altruistic reasons, not to reduce our own distress.
Altruistic dishonesty
Lies motivated by a desire to protect a partner's feelings rather than to serve the self. These are positively related to relationship satisfaction.
Criticism: verbal or nonverbal acts perceived as demeaning
Illegitimate demands: unreasonable requests
Rebuffs: one partner appeals to the other and is denied
Cumulative annoyances: minor actions that become irritating through repetition
Escalation: generalisations, blame attribution, extreme demands
Conciliation: the problem is reframed in less adversarial terms
Negotiation: problem-solving, information exchange, searching for solutions
Separation: the problem is seen as unmanageable; unwillingness to negotiate; blaming the other
Reconciliation: conciliation plus expressions of affection and recommitment
Structural improvement (best): favourable changes in the conditions causing the conflict, strong affection, open communication, assertion of personal worth, allowance of differences
Integrative agreements: both partners' original goals are satisfied through cooperation (e.g. sitting down to resolve incompatible schedules)
Compromise: both partners reduce their aspirations; best available solution (e.g. she closes the door, he turns down the volume)
Domination (second worst): one person wins, power is unevenly distributed, coercion is reinforced, irrational demands are met
Separation (worst): the problem is seen as unmanageable, blame continues, neither partner is willing to negotiate
Not communicating: hidden agendas, kitchen-sinking (dragging multiple topics in), off-beaming (jumping from topic to topic), interrupting, "yes, but" responses.
Not hearing: cross-complaining (responding to a complaint with a counter-complaint), negative mind reading, self-summarising.
One partner pressures the other to change through demands and complaints. The other retreats and withdraws. Demand causes withdrawal, and withdrawal causes further demand.
Why it happens: one partner wants more closeness, shared time and interdependence. The other wants more distance, privacy and autonomy. The partner who wants independence can achieve their goal unilaterally (by withdrawing). The partner who wants closeness cannot, so they demand change.
Socialisation perspective: women are socialised to value connection and fear rejection, so they demand. Men are socialised to value independence and fear intrusion, so they withdraw.
Social structural perspective: men tend to benefit from the status quo of traditional marriage. Women, less satisfied with it, demand change. Men, satisfied, withdraw to preserve things as they are.
Use I-statements and XYZ statements rather than "you always" accusations
Paraphrase the problem to confirm understanding
Perception checking: verifying what the real issue is
Avoid negative reciprocity (resist the urge to retaliate)
Validate the partner's feelings ("I understand why you feel that way")
Spouses in happy marriages make benign attributions for partner behaviour. Distressed couples make distress-maintaining attributions: they discount positive behaviours (external, unstable, specific causes) and amplify negative behaviours (internal, stable, global causes). They assume the partner is selfishly motivated. The relationship between attributions and marital satisfaction is bidirectional.
Overriding the gut impulse to fight fire with fire. Accommodation means inhibiting destructive responses and reacting constructively instead. It requires self-control.
Four responses to conflict, mapped on two dimensions:
Exit (active, destructive): leaving, threatening to end the relationship, abusive acts
Voice (active, constructive): seeking outside help, negotiation, changing one's own behaviour
Loyalty (passive, constructive): waiting for conditions to improve, making benign attributions
Neglect (passive, destructive): ignoring the partner, withdrawing, refusing to confront problems
Happy couples do have negative interactions, but they maintain a higher ratio of positive to negative. Unhappy couples show more negative interactions than positive, or roughly equal amounts.
Conflict frequency depends on personality (neuroticism, extroversion, self-esteem), similarity of preferences, and life stage (elderly couples report less conflict). Common conflict topics shift across the lifespan: dating partners argue about sex, newlyweds about abusive or inconsiderate behaviour, midlife couples about children, and older couples about recreation and communication.
Mostly bad, but some conflict is necessary. It helps partners learn about each other and can increase satisfaction over time when handled constructively. The negative effects of poorly managed conflict include depression, eating disorders, alcoholism, cardiac disease, chronic pain, immune suppression, poor parenting and problematic child attachment.
About 51.9% of women and 66% of men report having been physically assaulted in a relationship. More acts of abuse come from women towards men, but women suffer more serious injuries and are twice as likely to be killed by a spouse. Violence is also prevalent in same-sex relationships.
Correlates of violence: stressful events, low income, little education, family background, cohabitation before marriage.
Predictors: self-regulatory failure (Finkel and DeWall). Participants whose self-regulatory resources were depleted were more violent after provocation.
Why victims stay: economic dependence, long relationship history, love, sunk investment, lack of perceived alternatives and abandonment panic.
Participants asked for help faster when they were alone than when others were present. This became a foundational demonstration of the bystander effect.
Pluralistic ignorance: nobody else is reacting, so it must be fine
Evaluation apprehension: fear that others will judge you for intervening
Diffusion of responsibility: each person assumes someone else will act
Social loafing: less effort when responsibility is shared
Five steps, each with potential barriers:
Notice the event (barriers: distraction, self-concern)
Interpret it as an emergency (barriers: pluralistic ignorance, ambiguity, uncertainty about whether it is a domestic dispute)
Assume personal responsibility (barrier: diffusion of responsibility)
Know what to do (barrier: lack of expertise or competence)
Decide to help (barriers: fear of embarrassment, perceived cost of helping)
Being in a hurry significantly reduced helping
Religious values had no effect on helping behaviour
Message relevance mattered: participants primed with a helping-relevant message helped more
Relationships and similarity: when a bystander has some connection or similarity to the victim, the bystander effect weakens
Group composition: people are less likely to help in groups of strangers than in groups of friends
Gender: women are less likely to intervene in the presence of men; men are more likely to help in the presence of women; women receive more help, especially when dressed femininely
In-group membership: the more in-group bystanders present, the more willing they are to help an in-group member
Attractiveness: attractive people receive more help
Closeness: people help close others regardless of cost, but with strangers they weigh the cost of helping and the likelihood of payback
In interdependent cultures (e.g. Japan), people are more likely to help in-group members than out-group members. Japanese participants helped acquaintances with no close relationship more than Canadians did, while Canadians helped personal and close relations more.
Education about intervention increases future helping
Calling out a specific person makes them feel personally responsible
Recognising and overcoming obstacles improves willingness to help
Playing prosocial video games increases short-term helping behaviour
Altruism: help given purely for the other person's benefit
Egoism: help given as a means of benefiting the self (mood repair, guilt avoidance, social approval)
When a person is in need, observers may feel empathic emotions (sympathy, compassion, tenderness). Batson argues these feelings create genuinely altruistic motivation.
Batson et al. experiment: If you do not feel similar to the person in need, you only help when escape is difficult (egoistic motivation). If you feel similar, you help regardless of how easy it is to leave (altruistic motivation). Personal distress and empathy are positively correlated but distinct: distress leads to egoistic motivation, empathy to altruistic motivation.
Reducing one's own empathic arousal (experienced as relief)
Avoiding social and self-punishment for failing to help
Gaining social and personal rewards for doing the right thing
Singer et al. found that highly empathic individuals showed neural activity in regions associated with both self-pain and other-pain, suggesting some overlap in how we experience our own and others' suffering.
Groups perceived as low in both competence and warmth tend to be dehumanised and receive less empathy.
People tell lies to protect others' feelings (altruistic lies)
These lies are positively associated with relationship satisfaction
Fewer lies are told to people one feels close to, and the distress of lying is higher with close partners
Individuals who justify deception by reference to their partner (rather than themselves) report more satisfaction and commitment (Metts, 1989)
Tellers of self-serving lies perceive their lies as more justified than receivers do (Gordon and Miller, 2000; Kaplar and Gordon, 2004)
"The bystander effect means people are callous." The effect is driven by situational factors (pluralistic ignorance, diffusion of responsibility), not by indifference. In the right conditions, most people will help.
"More bystanders means more help." The opposite is true for strangers, though in-group bystanders can actually increase willingness to help an in-group member.
"Altruism does not exist; all helping is selfish." Batson's research shows that empathic concern produces helping even when escape from the situation is easy, which is difficult to explain by egoistic models alone.
"Venting anger (catharsis) reduces aggression." This misconception bridges into the aggression material. Catharsis increases hostility rather than reducing it.
⚠️ Be able to walk through Peterson's Model from beginnings to termination and rank the five outcomes
⚠️ Know the demand-withdraw pattern, why it happens, and both explanations (socialisation and social structural)
⚠️ Be prepared to draw or describe the ELVN Model's two-by-two (active/passive by constructive/destructive)
⚠️ The bystander intervention decision tree is a classic exam question: know all five steps and the barrier at each stage
⚠️ Understand the difference between altruism and egoism, and how Batson's escape-difficulty experiment distinguishes them
⚠️ Know the distinction between distress-maintaining and benign attributions in happy vs. unhappy marriages
True or false: Pluralistic ignorance occurs when bystanders privately believe something is wrong but see others not reacting and conclude everything is fine.
True.
Fill in the blank: In the ELVN Model, Voice is the - response to conflict.
Active-constructive.
True or false: In Batson's experiment, participants who felt similar to the person in need only helped when escape was difficult.
False. They helped regardless of escape difficulty. It was participants who did NOT feel similar who helped only when escape was difficult.
Fill in the blank: The demand-withdraw pattern involves one partner ______ for change and the other partner ______.
Demanding (or pushing); withdrawing (or retreating).
True or false: Happy couples have no negative interactions.
False. They do have negative interactions, but their positive interactions outnumber them.
Q: Describe Peterson's Model of Conflict and list the five termination outcomes from best to worst.
A: Peterson's model describes conflict progressing from beginnings (triggered by criticism, illegitimate demands, rebuffs or cumulative annoyances) through middle stages (escalation, conciliation, negotiation, separation, reconciliation) to termination. The five outcomes ranked: structural improvement (best), integrative agreements, compromise, domination, separation (worst).
Q: What is the demand-withdraw pattern, and what are two theoretical explanations for why it occurs?
A: One partner demands change while the other withdraws. The socialisation perspective says women are socialised to seek connection (demand) and men to value autonomy (withdraw). The social structural perspective says women demand because they are less satisfied with the status quo of traditional marriage, while men withdraw to preserve it.
Q: Walk through the five steps of the bystander intervention decision tree and name a barrier at each step.
A: (1) Notice the event (barrier: distraction). (2) Interpret it as an emergency (barrier: pluralistic ignorance). (3) Assume personal responsibility (barrier: diffusion of responsibility). (4) Know what to do (barrier: lack of competence). (5) Decide to help (barrier: fear of embarrassment or perceived cost).
Q: How does Batson's experiment distinguish altruistic from egoistic motivation for helping?
A: By manipulating both empathy (similarity to the person in need) and ease of escape. When empathy is low, participants help only when escape is difficult (egoistic: they help to escape their own discomfort). When empathy is high, participants help even when escape is easy (altruistic: they are motivated by concern for the other person).
Q: What are distress-maintaining attributions and how do they differ from benign attributions?
A: Distressed couples discount a partner's positive behaviours (external, unstable, specific causes) and amplify negatives (internal, stable, global causes), assuming selfish motives. Happy couples make benign attributions, interpreting behaviour charitably.
This material flows directly from attraction and close relationships: the theories of relationship maintenance (investment, equity, interdependence) explain why conflict matters and why people stay in violent relationships. It also connects forward to aggression, since relationship violence, the frustration-aggression hypothesis and self-regulatory failure all reappear there. The prosocial behaviour material links to stress: social rejection is one of the strongest cortisol-elevating stressors, and helping behaviour is itself influenced by mood, empathy and situational demands covered in the stress lectures.
relationship conflict, Peterson model of conflict, conflict escalation, conflict resolution, structural improvement, integrative agreement, compromise, domination, separation, demand-withdraw pattern, Christensen, ELVN model, exit voice loyalty neglect, Rusbult 1982, accommodation in relationships, distress-maintaining attributions, benign attributions, kitchen sinking, off beaming, negative reciprocity, I-statements, bystander effect, bystander intervention, Latane and Darley, smoke-filled room, diffusion of responsibility, pluralistic ignorance, evaluation apprehension, social loafing, Good Samaritan study, Darley and Batson, prosocial behaviour, altruism, egoism, empathy-altruism hypothesis, Batson, empathic concern, personal distress, theory of mind, dehumanisation, altruistic dishonesty, relationship violence, marital distress, self-regulatory failure, Finkel and DeWall