tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca-fr/topics/disputes-59219/articlesDisputes – La Conversation2021-04-23T14:19:27Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1595652021-04-23T14:19:27Z2021-04-23T14:19:27ZArguing with the people you love? How to have a healthy family dispute<p>Unlike Britain’s royal family, most of us don’t have the option to move to another country when we don’t see eye to eye. But most of us have likely experienced disagreements with loved ones.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/heritage/Site/Publications_files/CA_as_SOCIAL_THEORY.pdf">Conversations are designed to</a> do things – to start some action, and complete it – whether it’s a service transaction, an invitation to coffee or reassurance on a bad day.
Our <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZnhyDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false">uniquely complex communicative system</a> has evolved to help us get things done in the social world. </p>
<p>Arguments are part of this complex system. They can be unavoidable, necessary or even productive. But they can also be difficult.</p>
<p>It can be hard to know what to do when tensions are high and harsh words are flying, particularly when it involves someone you’re close to. But research on how disputes unfold – and conversation more generally – offers some ideas about the best way to handle one.</p>
<h2>What is a dispute?</h2>
<p>There are many words for disagreeing, and there are plenty of academic theories describing what disputes are and why they happen. But arguments are not abstract models. They’re lived in, breathed in, sweated in and talked (or sometimes shouted) into being. </p>
<p>Research focusing on <a href="https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/288351315.pdf">how disputes actually happen</a> shows they’re characterised by three types of features. First are the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216606000488">vocal features</a>, which include talking in a higher pitch, louder and faster. Then, there are <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1750481310395452?casa_token=MCNQWEQD6HwAAAAA:8nbyXh-cgjWzfL3syRrwybRFQl_ddHIMy9tRIAwPRAFADrgHtR2LSl9ZoUFsVlnzWPjWaKQZZ9XEVA">embodied features</a> such as aggressive gestures and avoidant stances, such as turning away from someone. Finally, there are <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01638539009544746?casa_token=BB9edpIE1oUAAAAA:FTK-JRJ2oCmG7BufkUAQX1k1_9C1Cvc12r5ynYPM6duFB-HDWhgef8Va-Rh5Z2XksR64oTcPmi4FAQ">interactional features</a> such as talking over each other, not listening or metatalk – <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08351813.2020.1826765?casa_token=isJl2NJbSIkAAAAA:Mh-dXMfkBSGvEeoOWAoxLDjzbZ_eF-zbND-D8q4RAP5WHadqg1KUZDF_UnySFAcyb3LD-DF3BbGq1A">comments about the conversation</a> as it’s happening. </p>
<p><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1354067X9953001?casa_token=Gje17vkyg_AAAAAA:ik_4Ze-4PIFLa6yjthOpztvJrtdVOokhRT73M8jDN4t1w0Bl7WzW2--d1vjZwanphorOH_r6jaVZdA">Displays of emotion</a> such as displeasure or anger, are also common. Participants might accuse each other of emotions or label their own emotions.</p>
<p>Disputes happen for several reasons. What each person is doing can vary, from <a href="https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.530.8869&rep=rep1&type=pdf">complaints and accusations</a> to <a href="https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1348/014466610X500791?casa_token=r58ikQ5XFxEAAAAA:QR9wr0Fcz7q5BeSvL8soAIhKMNA1O9TcpcBaLleBKDvZ8Q5sPyX1OSg0OzSL5-xb8By5QbgNm9kHNhg">demands, threats or resistance</a>. </p>
<p>They can be about many things – familial obligations, what to have for dinner, politics or how to plan a holiday. Luckily, disputes share elements <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2NxaC7nSetAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false">with each other</a> and with conversation generally – so you don’t have to invent new strategies every time you’re caught in one.</p>
<h2>Affiliation and alignment</h2>
<p>When bickering with a friend or family member, there are ways to make them feel like you’re still on their side even if you disagree. If you can keep these in mind, and use them at the right time, you might stop your dispute from escalating into something harder to mend.</p>
<p>The first thing is <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0196.pub2">affiliation</a>, which means support for the other person or their view of things. </p>
<p>Affiliation involves phrasing what you say so it’s best <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08351810903471258?casa_token=yxnWxfDAEB8AAAAA:uoHEX2dlOS06wxwlHH7TOWmmfB51qMMbzg5tadx5SeRcf_5-vABUKQZtIt0Hchu4vUlFNfCX4qRi5A">understood and easier to respond to</a>. For example, saying “you’ve been to France before, right?” invites someone to share their experience – partly by including the tag “right” at the end, which at least requires a confirmation.</p>
<p>It can also involve categorisation, the way we talk about or treat others as <a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF00142771.pdf">certain types or group members</a>. For example, if you reduce the other person to a stereotype through labelling – by saying something like “girls always say stuff like that” or “OK, boomer” – you risk provoking a response to the insult, not to the action in which that insult was embedded.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Two people sitting on a bench, with sunset in the background, with their heads in their hands." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396793/original/file-20210423-23-15lzojx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396793/original/file-20210423-23-15lzojx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396793/original/file-20210423-23-15lzojx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396793/original/file-20210423-23-15lzojx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396793/original/file-20210423-23-15lzojx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396793/original/file-20210423-23-15lzojx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396793/original/file-20210423-23-15lzojx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Family arguments can be tough.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/silhouettes-couple-man-woman-broken-heart-784192900">Shutterstock/Banana Oil</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The second thing we expect from any conversation is alignment – cooperating with the direction of the conversation, such as accepting or denying a request. The opposite, disalignment, might occur when a request is ignored.</p>
<p>Alignment has more to do with the sequence of the conversation, how the dispute unfolds over time. Asking for clarification – a practice known as <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0136100">repair</a> – or <a href="https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.27.1.03rob?crawler=true">claiming a misunderstanding</a> can treat problems as fixable errors rather than moral failings or attacks. <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0261927X17744244">Humour can diffuse</a> conflict escalation. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-lie-politely-when-you-receive-a-bad-christmas-present-108635">How to lie (politely) when you receive a bad Christmas present</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How to have a healthy dispute</h2>
<p>In the course of a dispute, you need to think about when to bring these tactics out. They’re more likely to yield better outcomes earlier in the dispute. By the time it’s escalated, your responses may be viewed through the prism of the dispute and <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eFSXDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT200&ots=6tM3fJnXr1&sig=Zchtur1abh25W7ERN5Q49ASRaJc#v=onepage&q&f=false">any offensiveness</a> you’ve already displayed toward each other. In cases like this, teasing can come across as contempt, for example, and claims to misunderstand as bad-faith mockery.</p>
<p>It can feel like disputes take on a life of their own – as if the conversation uses us rather than we use it – and this is partly because conversation can seemingly take us along for the ride (consider the difficulty of turning down invitations). We invest our identities into conversations so disputes can seem to threaten us and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216618304302?casa_token=1SbOpn_2k8MAAAAA:YQ2Yb9nt-ONsmBKmVzTCx8cfl76bS5nK6_Yd8zONBVJFdJ57vwgdBDJxsXfk0aUOhilRQAF-ABA">what we stand for</a> morally. </p>
<p>This may be starker with family, whose opinions of us often matter more than friends or colleagues, for example. It’s always worth stopping to reflect on what a dispute is really for, whether what you’re saying lines up with your goals and whether taking a stand is worth it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/159565/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jessica Robles does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Disputes can seem to threaten us and what we stand for morally.Jessica Robles, Lecturer in Social Psychology, Loughborough UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1565932021-03-23T14:52:56Z2021-03-23T14:52:56ZWhy election outcomes are being challenged, and why it matters. Ghana as a case in point<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390462/original/file-20210318-23-7c6bcp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The courts have become an integral part of Ghana's electoral prcess</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia Commons</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Supreme Court of Ghana has upheld President Akufo-Addo’s victory in the December 7, 2020 polls. This followed a challenge from former president, John Mahama. The court ruled that there was no reason to order a re-run of the poll. Akufo-Addo can now focus on his second term agenda. </p>
<p>This is the <a href="https://www.pulse.com.gh/news/local/ndc-officially-files-petition-at-supreme-court-to-challenge-result-of-2020/6yj2m5n">second petition</a> of its kind in Ghana over the past eight years. By every indication, we can expect to see more – in Ghana and in other African countries. The trend is already set in Ghana: the results of the elections in 2020 and 2021 were fiercely contested by the losing party. Most of the polls were also marred with violence. </p>
<p>The most recent poll in Ghana was relatively peaceful. But the post-election political environment was rife with tension. The opposition rejected the results and called on supporters to take to the streets to stop the electoral commission from “stealing the election”. </p>
<p>Electoral disputes and petitions are becoming a prominent feature of the electoral process. Many of these disputes and petitions are reflective of widespread electoral irregularities on the continent. While they may threaten the peace of a nation, they enhance the culture of democracy and expose an underlying cry for inclusive governance.</p>
<h2>A natural extension of the electoral process</h2>
<p>Post-election crises are not new to Ghana. Elections in which the opposition fails to unseat the incumbent are almost always marred with accusations of fraud and vote-rigging. For example, the 2012 election in which Akufo-Addo failed to unseat then President Mahama was <a href="http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:689688/FULLTEXT01.pdf">heavily disputed</a>. In that election, opposition protests led to a series of violent incidents.</p>
<p>During the weeks following the election, Akufo-Addo filed what at the time what was the <a href="https://globalvoices.org/2013/08/16/who-will-win-the-biggest-legal-battle-in-ghanas-history/">largest legal petition</a> with the Supreme Court. The court was deluged with about half a million documents from over 11,000 polling stations to prove double voting, vote padding, and other forms of illegal voting. </p>
<p>In the end, it <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/000203971705200305">dismissed the petition</a> but ordered reforms to the electoral process</p>
<p>Mahama’s petition to overturn the 2020 election made similar allegations of double voting, vote padding, and other forms of illegal voting. </p>
<p>In addition to his petition, 16 legal proceedings were initiated by parliamentary candidates from the New Patriotic Party and the National Democratic Congress.</p>
<h2>Winner-take-all systems</h2>
<p>Ghana has a majoritarian presidential system. The first candidate to pass the 50% plus one threshold assumes all the power that comes with the position. This winner-take-all system makes losing elections extremely costly. </p>
<p>Political candidates spend millions of dollars on campaigns. It, therefore, becomes difficult to accept the results when they and their supporters are suddenly informed that they have lost the election and, for that matter, will have no part in the governance of the country. </p>
<p>Electoral petitions are therefore seen as the final tool in the do-all-you-can playbook for power.</p>
<p>The high cost of losing elections in winner-take-all democracies also incentivises incumbents to attempt to maintain power at all costs, even if that means bribing electoral institutions or using the state apparatus such as the military to suppress the will of the people. These acts themselves make electoral petitions inevitable as the propensity for the opposition to reject results under such conditions rises. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/705599">Research has also shown</a> that losing parties in democratic regimes often have an incentive to reject electoral outcomes. While losing parties in autocratic regimes reasonably reject results to publicise fraud, losing parties in democratic regimes may do so for different reasons. </p>
<p>They often use the opportunity to challenge electoral results to create clout over the freeness and fairness of elections. This clout then serves as leverage for the losing party in negotiating favourable reforms with the government. </p>
<p>Presidential petitions also represent an important investment in a country’s democratic culture.</p>
<p>A presidential petition involves all three arms of government – the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. As the petition plays out, citizens are provided a rare opportunity to learn the legal and political operations of their electoral system and other national institutions. As citizens learn more about how elections are conducted and administered, and how elections may be stolen, they become more vigilant and may help reverse such acts in the future. </p>
<p>Elections in Africa are evolving from apparent manipulation to sophisticated (mis)administration. Administrative attempts to rig an election are more likely to be caught by voters who participate in the process than international observes patrolling polling stations. </p>
<p>In conclusion, electoral disputes and petitions are good for growing democracies. They represent useful opportunities for opposition groups to participate in governance. They also activate national institutions for valuable reforms and affirm citizens’ trust and confidence in the electoral process.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156593/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Taden does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Electoral disputes and petitions are becoming a prominent feature of the electoral process.John Taden, School of Economics, Political, and Policy Sciences, University of Texas at DallasLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1396752020-08-09T08:14:21Z2020-08-09T08:14:21ZKenya is struggling to deliver justice online: what needs to be done<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/351313/original/file-20200805-16-1abeuo0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A volume of the Law of Kenya sits on a judge's desk during trial. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP via Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Kenya <a href="https://www.judiciary.go.ke/press-statement-administrative-and-contingency-management-plan-to-mitigate-covid-19-in-kenyas-justice-sector/">ordered the closure</a> of courtrooms to the public in April in keeping with government measures to limit gatherings and mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Chief Justice David Maraga highlighted the risk posed by heavy human traffic. He also <a href="http://www.kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Chief-Justice-Press-Statement-Administrative-and-contingency-management-plan-to-mitigate-COVID-19-in-Kenya%E2%80%99s-Justice-Sector.pdf">pleaded the case</a> that most judicial officers are older, and therefore fall into a more vulnerable category.</p>
<p>With judicial services scaled down, priority was given to applications that the courts deemed to be urgent. The immediate result was that those who couldn’t demonstrate urgency could not access the court system. Access to justice was also impeded by rolling curfews imposed to limit the spread of COVID-19. </p>
<p>Nor was the limited <a href="http://www.kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Regulatory-operations-at-Milimani-Law-Courts.pdf">rollout</a> of information technology good enough. This led to the Law Society of Kenya immediately petitioning before court. It argued that courts offer a dispute resolution service to the public without discrimination. They must therefore operate uninterrupted so as to check against excesses by the executive and reinforce the principle that there is no temporary suspension of the rule of law and principle of legality. </p>
<p>To this end, the law society argued, legal services should be declared an essential service. </p>
<p>The court <a href="http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/193192/">ruled</a> in the society’s favour. The ruling meant that lawyers would have unrestricted movement to access clients and court services. They would also be able to traverse the country and access areas under lockdown.</p>
<p>As a result of the ruling <a href="https://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2020/04/courts-to-scale-up-hearings-as-ncaj-orders-expeditious-arraignment-of-suspects">there was an increase</a> in the number of court sessions and tribunal hearings. Registry services also resumed. The justice council, led by the chief justice, also ordered the presentation of suspects in court within 24 hours of arrest as required by law. </p>
<p>But the question remains as to whether all Kenyans are now able to access justice as they did before the COVID-19 outbreak. Especially if we take into consideration that Kenya’s internet coverage is unevenly distributed. For Kenyans to access the judiciary, they need to be in a region where there is electricity and internet coverage. In the rural or upcountry areas, there is an <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/internet-access-how-rural-kenya-is-keeping-pace/a-47071209#:%7E:text=Kenyans%20are%20going%20online%20in,Internet%20penetration%20is%20at%2090%25.&text=Internet%20access%20and%20affordability%20remain,African%20Research%20in%20Community%20Health">issue</a> with the internet. Proper technology infrastructure should be installed to increase internet coverage. This infrastructure is paramount to improve access for Kenyans to the judiciary.</p>
<h2>Adoption of a digital judiciary</h2>
<p>The judiciary functions to safeguard the rule of law, equality and justice with minimal delay. It’s required to provide mechanisms for all the litigant classes to access its services. </p>
<p>The Kenyan judiciary has sought to address this partly by operating <a href="https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2020-05-07-kasarani-stadium-turned-into-court-90-charged-over-covid-19-offences/">temporary open-air courts</a> in strategic places where social distancing can be observed. </p>
<p>In July, the chief justice <a href="https://www.judiciary.go.ke/download/speech-by-cj-david-maraga-at-launch-of-judiciary-e-filing-system">launched</a> an e-filing system which enables litigants to file and track their cases. The judiciary also conducts virtual court sessions with prisoners through video link sessions for matters such as bail and plea taking.</p>
<p>Most proceedings are taking place on online platforms. Typically, court clerks send Skype, Zoom, or Microsoft Teams links for a court session to the parties involved. The litigants turn up at an appointed time and the application hearing takes place. In areas outside Nairobi metropolis, some courts are allocating litigants time slots to attend matters within the court premises. </p>
<p>Before the pandemic, higher courts, including the Supreme Court, had already put in place guidelines allowing for digital proceedings. The guidelines allow for the filing of applications and submissions via email and the judgement is posted to the participants.</p>
<p>But there are challenges. Most people do not have access to or <a href="https://www.judiciary.go.ke/e-filing-takes-shape-in-nairobi-courts/">familiarity with the technology</a> in use by the courts. Typically, one requires access to a computer, a good internet connection and electricity. Depending on location, these requirements <a href="https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/business/article/2001361388/report-says-one-in-five-kenyans-has-internet-access">disadvantage</a> a large number of people, especially in rural regions. </p>
<p>Self litigants are likely to face challenges with the new e-filing platform because the system is geared for represented litigants. The system requires one to register a case using a law firm or lawyer. The legal documents earlier prepared are uploaded and court filing fees paid. The litigant then awaits the activation of the court file to be granted court audience. This means that if litigants cannot find a lawyer or understand the legal terminologies, they won’t be able to access the judiciary.</p>
<p>All these could add to a huge judicial backlog. Currently, the earliest court dates for new hearings are available from 2021. Businesses that have been heavily affected by the COVID-19 pandemic will not be able to receive relief soon and might lose hope in the judicial system. </p>
<h2>Way forward</h2>
<p>For the judiciary to become fully digital it needs an everyday court management system of judges. This would be supported by an electronic filing and court management system for judicial officers and litigants. Such a system must be user friendly to self-represented consumers.</p>
<p>Underpinning all these is an electronic filing system that safeguards against cyber attacks. This is the case in the <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/high-court/the-rolls-building/e-filing/">UK</a> and the <a href="https://www.uscourts.gov/topics/e-filing">US</a>, where disputes can be settled online. They already have e-filing and case management systems that are efficient and well utilised with accountability and authenticity processes. </p>
<p>Kenya needs not just the necessary laws and regulations but the information and communication technology infrastructure. For example, there should be cyber security software and hardware free from software tagging. It also needs institutional capacity to monitor its use by litigants, the judiciary and the public prosecution office.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/139675/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mercy Muendo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A great deal still needs to be done to ensure that Kenyans have proper access to the justice system.Mercy Muendo, Lecturer, Information Technology and the Law, Daystar UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1285912020-01-07T13:12:28Z2020-01-07T13:12:28ZThe dark side of supportive relationships<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/308386/original/file-20200102-11909-1sjclwi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C222%2C2389%2C1972&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Your partner's intentions might be good, but the outcome often isn't.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/illustration-conscience-121046947">Ron and Joe/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Imagine that you’ve had a heated argument with a co-worker, and you call up your husband or wife to talk about it. Your partner can react in one of two ways. </p>
<p>They can assure you that you were right, your co-worker was wrong and that you have a right to be upset. </p>
<p>Or your partner can encourage you to look at the conflict objectively. They can point out reasons why your co-worker may not be so blameworthy after all.</p>
<p>Which of these responses would you prefer? Do you want a partner who unconditionally has your back, or one who plays devil’s advocate? </p>
<p>Which is better for you in the long run?</p>
<p><a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-50034-001">In a recent study</a>, we wanted to explore the contours and repercussions of this common relationship dynamic.</p>
<h2>Do we want unconditional support?</h2>
<p>If you’re like most people, you probably want a partner who has your back. We all tend to want empathetic partners who understand us, care for our needs and validate our views. </p>
<p>These qualities – which relationship researchers <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-12631-002">refer to as interpersonal responsiveness</a> – are viewed as a key ingredient in strong relationships. Research <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-17764-005">has identified</a> links between having a responsive partner and being happy and well adjusted.</p>
<p>But having an empathetic partner isn’t always a good thing – especially when it comes to your conflicts with others outside the relationship.</p>
<p>When we get into an argument with someone, <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.59.5.994">we tend to minimize our own contribution to the dispute and overstate what our adversary did wrong</a>. This can make the conflict worse.</p>
<p>After being involved in a dispute, we’ll often turn to our partners to vent and seek support.</p>
<p>In our study, we found that empathetic and caring partners were more likely to agree with their loved ones’ negative views of their adversary and blame the adversary for the conflict. </p>
<p>We also found that people whose relationship partners responded this way ended up being far more motivated to avoid their adversaries, tended to view them as bad and immoral, and were less interested in reconciliation. In fact, a full 56% of those who had received this type of empathy reported avoiding their adversaries, which can harm conflict resolution and often involves cutting off the relationship. </p>
<p>On the other hand, among the participants who didn’t receive this sort of support from their partners, only 19% reported avoiding their adversaries. </p>
<p>Receiving empathy from partners also was related to conflict escalation: After their partners took their side, 20% of participants wanted to see their adversary “hurt and miserable,” compared to only 6% of those who did not receive this sort of support. And 41% of those who received empathetic responses tried to live as if their adversary didn’t exist, compared to only 15% of those who didn’t receive unwavering support.</p>
<h2>Long-term consequences</h2>
<p>These dynamics became entrenched over time. They kept people from resolving their disputes, even as people found their partners’ responses to be emotionally gratifying. For this reason, they continued to vent, which created more opportunities to fan the flames of conflict. People seem to seek partners who end up making their conflicts worse over time.</p>
<p>What’s the lesson here? </p>
<p>We often want partners who makes us feel understood, cared for and validated. And it’s natural to want our loved ones to feel supported.</p>
<p>But soothing and validating responses aren’t always in our best long-term interests. Just as prioritizing immediate emotional gratification over the pursuit of long-term goals <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x">can be costly</a>, there are downsides when partners prioritize making us feel good in the moment over helping us properly wrestle with life’s difficult problems from a rational, unbiased perspective.</p>
<p>Those who want to better support their loved ones’ long-term welfare might want to consider first providing empathy and an opportunity to vent, but then moving on to the more difficult work of helping loved ones think objectively about their conflicts and acknowledge that, in most conflicts, both parties have some blame for the conflict, and just see the situation from very different perspectives. </p>
<p>The truth can hurt. But sometimes an objective, dispassionate confidant is what we need most.</p>
<p>[ <em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklysmart">You can get our highlights each weekend</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/128591/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Edward Lemay receives funding from National Science Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michele Gelfand receives funding from the National Science Foundation, FBI and Department of Defense. </span></em></p>Your partner might think they’re providing valuable encouragement, but a new study shows how it can backfire.Edward Lemay, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of MarylandMichele Gelfand, Distinguished University Professor, Department of Psychology, University of MarylandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1016652018-09-06T02:15:24Z2018-09-06T02:15:24ZPistols at dawn: why there’s more to duelling than what’s seen on our screens<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232223/original/file-20180816-2906-1ov8u4l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Warren Clarke, Richard Harrington, Ruby Bentall, Aidan Turner, and Kyle Soller in Poldark.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mammoth Screen</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Duelling has gone down in history as a rather quaint and misunderstood practice, a butt of the joke in historical comedies and references. However, duelling was once not only common but considered the pinnacle of honour and bravery, an event that could change one’s reputation - and indeed end one’s life - in a pull of a trigger.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232242/original/file-20180816-2918-oc9vwl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232242/original/file-20180816-2918-oc9vwl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232242/original/file-20180816-2918-oc9vwl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=755&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232242/original/file-20180816-2918-oc9vwl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=755&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232242/original/file-20180816-2918-oc9vwl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=755&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232242/original/file-20180816-2918-oc9vwl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=949&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232242/original/file-20180816-2918-oc9vwl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=949&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232242/original/file-20180816-2918-oc9vwl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=949&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alexander Hamilton by John Trumbull: he famously died in a duel.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia Commons</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is extraordinary, and a little fantastical to our modern mind to think that some of the most famous and respected individuals in history, such as Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. and the seventh President of the U.S. Andrew Jackson, both fought in many duels. Hamilton <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr-Hamilton_duel">died in a duel in 1804</a>. Jackson <a href="https://daily.jstor.org/andrew-jacksons-duels/">duelled over 100 times</a>, was wounded in two and killed at least one man.</p>
<p>In our age of “trolling” and social media wars, the idea that one man may calmly, and according to proper social rules, kill another over an accusation of cheating at cards, or of being a corrupt or incompetent politician, seems utterly barbaric. This modern incomprehension frequently shows in popular media. Modern filmmakers and writers of TV series and musicals can’t help projecting their own feelings when interpreting duelling in their work.</p>
<p>Take, for example, the successful musical Hamilton based on Alexander Hamilton’s life. The Burr-Hamilton duel, which ended Hamilton’s life, is portrayed in several songs. In one song, founding father Aaron Burr sings, “Can we agree that duels are dumb and immature?” and declares that the whole affair is “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7iHmuco_zo">absurd</a>”. It must certainly have seemed so to Lin-Manuel Miranda, who wrote the lyrics, but Burr himself probably had very different feelings on the matter.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/m7iHmuco_zo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Recent TV shows set in the 18th and early 19th century, notably <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/poldark/">Poldark</a> and the 2016 BBC mini-series adaptation of Tolstoy’s War and Peace, depict duels similarly.</p>
<p>In the duel between Pierre and Dolokhov in the miniseries of Tolstoy’s novel, the words “I know it’s stupid but I think I must go through with it” are <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q32ytzaT5rQ&t">put into Pierre’s mouth</a>. They encompass what the creators probably understood about duels – that they are stupid, but must be fought, for some unknown reason. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/q32ytzaT5rQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>And in season four of Poldark, the main character utters, “My only regret is that I apologised in the first place”, to drive home the point that his faulty pride regrettably caused the duel.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/J34BwS5LTn8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>This is not to argue that duels were in any way positive affairs, and should be portrayed as such. </p>
<p>The duel was a highly ritualized activity practised mainly by the upper classes from about 1500 to 1900. It was held in private, usually at dawn, as duelling was illegal throughout Europe and America. It was seen as neither a recreational sport, nor an urge or uncontrollable male aggression - the duel was an affair of honour. In <a href="https://www.sfu.ca/%7Eallen/duelingaler.pdf">the words of Samuel Johnson</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>In a state of highly polished society, an affront is held to be a serious injury. It must, therefore, be resented, or rather a duel must be fought upon it. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Honour was a most crucial concept for gentlemen, and ladies, tied up with one’s reputation. The importance placed on defending honour made refusing a duel challenge nearly impossible; the social consequences for doing so were severe. Indeed, gentlemen did not shoot each other over trivial matters, but rather over slander and <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e5ef/9ec04b4532c53aeb2f1cc4d63ed43354ba4f.pdf">accusations of falsehood or dishonesty</a>.</p>
<p>Duels involving women were not fought to gain a woman’s love, as some modern adaptations try to show, but rather because men took responsibility for the protection of honour of certain women in their lives. The duel, therefore, was a way to honourably and privately resolve offences. Its causes varied from <a href="https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/stable/pdf/27866745.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Af48639ef6f50c5b5ba476c2f4fbdb5a3">accusations of cheating to women’s infidelity</a>.</p>
<p>Alexander Pushkin, considered by many to be Russia’s greatest poet, died in a duel in 1837, defending the accusations that <a href="http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/blackeuro/pushkindeath.html">his wife Natalya had been unfaithful</a>. His death echoed in many ways the famous duel between Eugene Onegin and Vladimir Lensky in Pushkin’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Onegin#The_duel">Onegin</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232233/original/file-20180816-2903-1thk8ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232233/original/file-20180816-2903-1thk8ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232233/original/file-20180816-2903-1thk8ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232233/original/file-20180816-2903-1thk8ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232233/original/file-20180816-2903-1thk8ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232233/original/file-20180816-2903-1thk8ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232233/original/file-20180816-2903-1thk8ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Eugene Onegin and Vladimir Lensky’s duel, Ilya Repin, 1899, Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia Commons</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Scrupulous regulation</h2>
<p>A duel was scrupulously regulated by an elaborate and detailed set of rules, though the specifics of the duelling code varied between countries. Many codes of duelling and help manuals were published throughout the 18th and 19th century, the most popular being the <a href="https://www.sos.mo.gov/CMSImages/MDH/CodeDuello.pdf">Irish code duello</a>, published in 1777. </p>
<p>The duelling gentlemen would always have “seconds” - friends whose role was to negotiate a resolution of the dispute to avoid a potentially lethal confrontation, usually to very little success.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232241/original/file-20180816-2912-dhngtd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232241/original/file-20180816-2912-dhngtd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232241/original/file-20180816-2912-dhngtd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232241/original/file-20180816-2912-dhngtd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232241/original/file-20180816-2912-dhngtd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232241/original/file-20180816-2912-dhngtd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232241/original/file-20180816-2912-dhngtd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232241/original/file-20180816-2912-dhngtd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">French cased duelling pistols circa 1794-1797.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia Commons</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The high probability of death was, of course, ever present in duels, especially when pistols became more fashionable than rapiers. Pistols could misfire and rarely shot straight, and could also be deadly in the hands of incompetent seconds, whose task it was to provide and load them. </p>
<p>Doctors were also indispensible in duels. The Art of Duelling, <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Yd4wAQAAMAAJ&pg=PR5&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3%23v=onepage&q&f=false">published by “A Traveller” in 1836</a>, warns the duellist to remember to “secure the services of his medical attendant, who will provide himself with all the necessary apparatus for tying up wounds and arteries, and extracting balls”. </p>
<p>Public opinion (and ridicule) eventually led to the death of the duel. By the late 19th century, it was successfully banned by most countries, heavily criticised in the press, and frowned upon by the public.</p>
<p>This was, of course, a good thing, as we can all agree there are far better ways of resolving disputes. But next time you watch a duel on television or in a film, it might be worth recalling the history and meaning of this very serious rite of honour.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101665/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ryna Ordynat does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The next time you watch a duel on television or in a film, it might be worth recalling the history and meaning of this very serious rite of honour.Ryna Ordynat, PhD Candidate in History, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.