A power imbalance in your relationship can cause serious damage.
- The balance of power in relationships is an ever-changing status that deserves to be carefully monitored and cared for.
- Negative balances of power can be defined by three different relationship dynamics: demand/withdrawal, distancer/pursuer and the fear/shame dynamic.
- Researchers have conducted several studies and come up with a list of questions that can help you determine if your relationship has a negative power imbalance.
What is a “power imbalance” in a relationship?
Thinking about where "power" comes from - it's not just from one person. Power can be defined as the ability or capacity to direct or influence the behavior of others in a particular way. Power is not limited to domination and submission. Instead, power in relationships is understood to be the respective abilities of each person in the relationship to influence each other and direct the relationship - and this is a very complex element of romantic partnerships.
Possession of power changes the human psyche, usually in ways that we aren't aware of - one of which is the activation of the behavioral approach system that's based in our left frontal cortex.
This system is fueled by the neurotransmitter dopamine, which is considered a "feel-good" chemical. Being in control or having power feels good - this surge of dopamine that comes from feeling empowered or powerful is automatic, it's not something we can control.
According to Berkeley psychologist Dacher Keltner, having power makes people more likely to act like sociopaths, putting the human drive for rewards above the intimacy and connection we have with our partners. This is why the power imbalances of relationships are ever-changing.
How a negative struggle for power could be damaging your relationship (and your mental health)
Couples who are stuck in power-hungry relationship dynamics are more likely to get divorced, research says.
Photo by New Africa on Shutterstock
There are three types of relationship dynamics that can result from negative power imbalances within the relationship: demand/withdrawal, distancer/pursuer, and fear/shame.
The demand-withdrawal dynamic occurs when one partner is the "demander" who seeks change, discussion, and is in constant search of a resolution to issues within the relationship - while the other partner is withdrawn, seeking to avoid the issues.
According to a study conducted by Lauren Papp (Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Wisconsin), Chrystyna Kouros and E. Mark Cummings (both with the Department of Psychology at the University of Notre Dame), the demand/withdrawal dynamic has been linked with spousal depression and is a powerful predictor of dissatisfaction in the marriage and divorce.
Their findings also established a pattern of gender-bias within relationships that had the demand/withdrawal dynamic, with women predominantly being the "demanders" and men predominantly being "withdrawn".
The distancer-pursuer dynamic is explained as such: one person (known as the pursuer) tries to achieve and maintain a certain degree of intimacy with their partner (the distancer), who considers this affection to be "smothering".
In this unhealthy dynamic, the closer the pursuer wants to be, the more resistant, defiant and withdrawn the distancer can be. This is considered to be very similar to the "demand/withdrawal" dynamic, however, with distancer/pursuer relationships the struggle is over a deeper connection and less about who has more power.
The distancer would imagine the issue in the relationship to be the "neediness" of their partner, and the pursuer would feel their partner has been cold and potentially even purposefully destructive by withholding affection.
The fear-shame dynamic is often an "unconscious" culprit of relationship troubles, as the fear and insecurity of one partner would bring out the shame and avoidance in the other - and vice versa.
According to Dr. Steven Stosny, the vulnerability of fear and shame is influenced by many different variables (such as hormone levels and traumatic experiences), which can make this dynamic particularly difficult to get out of.
Two separate researchers of negative power imbalances in relationships, Dr. John Gottman and E. Mavis Hetherington, have both concluded that couples who are seemingly stuck in one of these three negative power dynamics were at a very high risk for divorce.
Is there such a thing as a positive power struggle?
While the idea of a power struggle or imbalance indicates something negative, not all power struggles are destructive. While the beginning stages of love might have you feeling as though you've found your "other half", relationships consist of two unique people who have different opinions, beliefs and viewpoints.
Naturally, there will be times that there is an imbalance in your relationship, however - there are some types of power struggles that allow growth within the relationship and encourage a deeper understanding and respect for each other.
According to psychiatrist Kurt Smith, a positive power struggle is one that ultimately results in the growth of the relationship. While the struggle is still a struggle, by the end of it, you will have reached an understanding of which lines can be crossed, which cannot and how much each partner is able to compromise.
This set of questions will help you determine if there is a negative power imbalance in your relationship.
There is a list of questions put forth by researchers that will help you determine if your relationship has a negative power imbalance...
Photo by Red Confidential on Shutterstock
Psychology researchers Allison Farrell, Jeffry Simpson, and Alexander Rothman conducted three separate studies* on the balance of power in relationships and from the results, were able to come up with a self-report style "test" (called the Relationship Power Inventory) for romantic partners to be able to assess the balance of power between them.
The questions provided in this inventory target important aspects of power within romantic relationships and can help you and your partner assess if you have a negative or positive imbalance of power.
- I have more say than my partner does when we make decisions in our relationship.
- I have more control over decision making than my partner does in our relationship.
- When we make decisions in our relationship, I get the final say.
- I have more influence than my partner does on decisions in our relationship.
- I have more power than my partner when deciding about issues in our relationship.
- I am more likely than my partner to get my way when we disagree about issues in our relationship.
- My partner typically accepts what I want when we make decisions in this domain.
- My partner tends to give in to my preferences when we disagree about decisions in this domain.
- My partner has more say than I do when we make decisions in our relationship.
- My partner has more control over decision making than I do in our relationship.
- When we make decisions in our relationship, my partner gets the final say.
- My partner has more influence than I do on decisions in our relationship.
- My partner has more power than me when deciding about issues in our relationship.
- My partner is more likely to get his/her way than me when we disagree about issues in our relationship.
- I typically accept what my partner wants when we make decisions in this domain.
- I tend to give in to my partner's preferences when we disagree about decisions in this domain.
- I am more likely than my partner to start discussions about issues in our relationship.
- When my partner and I make decisions in our relationship, I tend to structure and lead the discussion.
- I lay out the options more than my partner does when we discuss decisions in our relationship.
- I tend to bring up issues in our relationship more often than my partner does.
- I generally steer the discussions my partner and I have about decisions in this domain.
- I can make my partner come around to what I want when making decisions in this domain without him/her noticing what I am doing.
- My partner is more likely than me to start discussions about issues in our relationship.
- When my partner and I make decisions in our relationship, my partner tends to structure and lead the discussion.
- My partner lays out the options more than I do when we discuss decisions in this domain.
- My partner tends to bring up issues in this domain more often than I do.
- My partner generally steers the discussions we have about decisions in this domain.
- After the fact, I sometimes realize my partner influenced me without my noticing when making decisions in this domain.
You can find more on the Relationship Power Inventory here [PDF download].
*A note on the parameters of these studies: the studies mentioned above were limited to couples who were involved in monogamous heterosexual relationships, as much of the past research about power dynamics in romantic couples also focused on heterosexual relationships.
Shared power and continuously balancing the scales…
The balance of power within your relationship is a fascinating and extremely important thing to be aware of, as it can play a key role in the positive (or negative) direction of your romantic life together.
Reaching a balance in power can be explained as "shared power", where both partners take responsibility for themselves and the health of the relationship. In this ideal balance of power, ideas and decisions are shared jointly and points of view are respected and valued. There is an open line of communication and where issues arise, there is space for vulnerability and compassion.
The key elements that produce a healthy balance of power in a relationship are:
- Attention: when both partners feel their emotional needs are being met
- Influence: when both partners have the ability to engage with and emotionally affect the other.
- Accommodation: while there may be times where one partner's need must be put above the others (in a time of tragedy, for example), most decisions are made jointly.
- Respect: when each partner has positive regard, respect, and admiration for the humanity of the other person.
- Selfhood: when each partner maintains a positive value of self and is able to be their own person both within and outside of the relationship.
- Vulnerability: each partner is willing to admit fault, weakness or uncertainties in themselves.
- Fairness: when both partners feel that the responsibilities and duties in their lives are divided in a way that supports each person.
According to Theresa e DiDonato, a social psychiatrist and associate professor at Loyola University in Maryland, one of the keys to a successful long-term relationship is a consistent reassessment of the balance of power - because in healthy relationships, the power structure will inevitably shift and change as both people involved change and as you tackle new life challenges together.
"There a widely held belief that to be loved you have to abandon power and vice versa - and then you choose a partner who is able to provide the missing function."
- Adam Kahane, Power and Love
- Power and Dependency - Big Think ›
- The Power Struggle of Love - Big Think ›
- More couples are choosing to live apart: Here's why - Big Think ›
Ash deposits of some of North America's largest volcanic eruptions.
The end of the world as we know it
Panoramic view of Yellowstone National Park
Image: Heinrich Berann for the National Park Service – public domain
Of the many freak ways to shuffle off this mortal coil – lightning strikes, shark bites, falling pianos – here's one you can safely scratch off your worry list: an outbreak of the Yellowstone supervolcano.
As the map below shows, previous eruptions at Yellowstone were so massive that the ash fall covered most of what is now the western United States. A similar event today would not only claim countless lives directly, but also create enough subsidiary disruption to kill off global civilisation as we know it. A relatively recent eruption of the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia may have come close to killing off the human species (see further below).
However, just because a scenario is grim does not mean that it is likely (insert topical political joke here). In this case, the doom mongers claiming an eruption is 'overdue' are wrong. Yellowstone is not a library book or an oil change. Just because the previous mega-eruption happened long ago doesn't mean the next one is imminent.
Ash beds of North America
Ash beds deposited by major volcanic eruptions in North America.
Image: USGS – public domain
This map shows the location of the Yellowstone plateau and the ash beds deposited by its three most recent major outbreaks, plus two other eruptions – one similarly massive, the other the most recent one in North America.
Huckleberry Ridge
The Huckleberry Ridge eruption occurred 2.1 million years ago. It ejected 2,450 km3 (588 cubic miles) of material, making it the largest known eruption in Yellowstone's history and in fact the largest eruption in North America in the past few million years.
This is the oldest of the three most recent caldera-forming eruptions of the Yellowstone hotspot. It created the Island Park Caldera, which lies partially in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming and westward into Idaho. Ash from this eruption covered an area from southern California to North Dakota, and southern Idaho to northern Texas.
Mesa Falls
About 1.3 million years ago, the Mesa Falls eruption ejected 280 km3 (67 cubic miles) of material and created the Henry's Fork Caldera, located in Idaho, west of Yellowstone.
It was the smallest of the three major Yellowstone eruptions, both in terms of material ejected and area covered: 'only' most of present-day Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas and Nebraska, and about half of South Dakota.
Lava Creek
The Lava Creek eruption was the most recent major eruption of Yellowstone: about 640,000 years ago. It was the second-largest eruption in North America in the past few million years, creating the Yellowstone Caldera.
It ejected only about 1,000 km3 (240 cubic miles) of material, i.e. less than half of the Huckleberry Ridge eruption. However, its debris is spread out over a significantly wider area: basically, Huckleberry Ridge plus larger slices of both Canada and Mexico, plus most of Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri.
Long Valley
This eruption occurred about 760,000 years ago. It was centered on southern California, where it created the Long Valley Caldera, and spewed out 580 km3 (139 cubic miles) of material. This makes it North America's third-largest eruption of the past few million years.
The material ejected by this eruption is known as the Bishop ash bed, and covers the central and western parts of the Lava Creek ash bed.
Mount St Helens
The eruption of Mount St Helens in 1980 was the deadliest and most destructive volcanic event in U.S. history: it created a mile-wide crater, killed 57 people and created economic damage in the neighborhood of $1 billion.
Yet by Yellowstone standards, it was tiny: Mount St Helens only ejected 0.25 km3 (0.06 cubic miles) of material, most of the ash settling in a relatively narrow band across Washington State and Idaho. By comparison, the Lava Creek eruption left a large swathe of North America in up to two metres of debris.
The difference between quakes and faults
The volume of dense rock equivalent (DRE) ejected by the Huckleberry Ridge event dwarfs all other North American eruptions. It is itself overshadowed by the DRE ejected at the most recent eruption at Toba (present-day Indonesia). This was one of the largest known eruptions ever and a relatively recent one: only 75,000 years ago. It is thought to have caused a global volcanic winter which lasted up to a decade and may be responsible for the bottleneck in human evolution: around that time, the total human population suddenly and drastically plummeted to between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs.
Image: USGS – public domain
So, what are the chances of something that massive happening anytime soon? The aforementioned mongers of doom often claim that major eruptions occur at intervals of 600,000 years and point out that the last one was 640,000 years ago. Except that (a) the first interval was about 200,000 years longer, (b) two intervals is not a lot to base a prediction on, and (c) those intervals don't really mean anything anyway. Not in the case of volcanic eruptions, at least.
Earthquakes can be 'overdue' because the stress on fault lines is built up consistently over long periods, which means quakes can be predicted with a relative degree of accuracy. But this is not how volcanoes behave. They do not accumulate magma at constant rates. And the subterranean pressure that causes the magma to erupt does not follow a schedule.
What's more, previous super-eruptions do not necessarily imply future ones. Scientists are not convinced that there ever will be another big eruption at Yellowstone. Smaller eruptions, however, are much likelier. Since the Lava Creek eruption, there have been about 30 smaller outbreaks at Yellowstone, the last lava flow being about 70,000 years ago.
As for the immediate future (give or take a century): the magma chamber beneath Yellowstone is only 5 percent to 15 percent molten. Most scientists agree that is as un-alarming as it sounds. And that its statistically more relevant to worry about death by lightning, shark, or piano.
Strange Maps #1041
Got a strange map? Let me know at strangemaps@gmail.com.
When the pandemic forced office employees into lockdown and cut them off from spending in-person time with their colleagues, they almost immediately realized that they favor remote work over their traditional office routines and norms.
As remote workers of all ages contemplate their futures – and as some offices and schools start to reopen – many Americans are asking hard questions about whether they wish to return to their old lives, and what they're willing to sacrifice or endure in the years to come.
Even before the pandemic, there were people asking whether office life jibed with their aspirations.
We spent years studying “digital nomads" – workers who had left behind their homes, cities and most of their possessions to embark on what they call “location independent" lives. Our research taught us several important lessons about the conditions that push workers away from offices and major metropolitan areas, pulling them toward new lifestyles.
Legions of people now have the chance to reinvent their relationship to their work in much the same way.
Big-city bait and switch
Most digital nomads started out excited to work in career-track jobs for prestigious employers. Moving to cities like New York and London, they wanted to spend their free time meeting new people, going to museums and trying out new restaurants.
But then came the burnout.
Although these cities certainly host institutions that can inspire creativity and cultivate new relationships, digital nomads rarely had time to take advantage of them. Instead, high cost of living, time constraints and work demands contributed to an oppressive culture of materialism and workaholism.
Pauline, 28, who worked in advertising helping large corporate clients to develop brand identities through music, likened city life for professionals in her peer group to a “hamster wheel." (The names used in this article are pseudonyms, as required by research protocol.)
“The thing about New York is it's kind of like the battle of the busiest," she said. “It's like, 'Oh, you're so busy? No, I'm so busy.'"
Most of the digital nomads we studied had been lured into what urbanist Richard Florida termed “creative class" jobs – positions in design, tech, marketing and entertainment. They assumed this work would prove fulfilling enough to offset what they sacrificed in terms of time spent on social and creative pursuits.
Yet these digital nomads told us that their jobs were far less interesting and creative than they had been led to expect. Worse, their employers continued to demand that they be “all in" for work – and accept the controlling aspects of office life without providing the development, mentorship or meaningful work they felt they had been promised. As they looked to the future, they saw only more of the same.
Ellie, 33, a former business journalist who is now a freelance writer and entrepreneur, told us: “A lot of people don't have positive role models at work, so then it's sort of like 'Why am I climbing the ladder to try and get this job? This doesn't seem like a good way to spend the next twenty years.'"
By their late 20s to early 30s, digital nomads were actively researching ways to leave their career-track jobs in top-tier global cities.
Looking for a fresh start
Although they left some of the world's most glamorous cities, the digital nomads we studied were not homesteaders working from the wilderness; they needed access to the conveniences of contemporary life in order to be productive. Looking abroad, they quickly learned that places like Bali in Indonesia, and Chiang Mai in Thailand had the necessary infrastructure to support them at a fraction of the cost of their former lives.
With more and more companies now offering employees the choice to work remotely, there's no reason to think digital nomads have to travel to southeast Asia – or even leave the United States – to transform their work lives.
During the pandemic, some people have already migrated away from the nation's most expensive real estate markets to smaller cities and towns to be closer to nature or family. Many of these places still possess vibrant local cultures. As commutes to work disappear from daily life, such moves could leave remote workers with more available income and more free time.
The digital nomads we studied often used savings in time and money to try new things, like exploring side hustles. One recent study even found, somewhat paradoxically, that the sense of empowerment that came from embarking on a side hustle actually improved performance in workers' primary jobs.
The future of work, while not entirely remote, will undoubtedly offer more remote options to many more workers. Although some business leaders are still reluctant to accept their employees' desire to leave the office behind, local governments are embracing the trend, with several U.S. cities and states – along with countries around the world – developing plans to attract remote workers.
This migration, whether domestic or international, has the potential to enrich communities and cultivate more satisfying work lives.
Rachael A. Woldoff, Professor of Sociology, West Virginia University and Robert Litchfield, Associate Professor of Business, Washington & Jefferson College
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
