The Dark Side of Supportive Relationships

BY EDWARD LEMAY & MICHELE GELFAND THE CONVERSATION

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. They can assure you that you were right, your co-worker was wrong and that you have a right to be upset. 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. Which of these responses would you prefer? Do you want a partner who unconditionally has your back, or one who plays devil’s advocate? Which is better for you in the long run? In a recent study, we wanted to explore the contours and repercussions of this common relationship dynamic.

Do we want unconditional support? 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. These qualities – which relationship researchers refer to as interpersonal responsiveness – are viewed as a key ingredient in strong relationships. Research has identified links between having a responsive partner and being happy and well adjusted. But having an empathetic partner isn’t always a good thing – especially when it comes to your conflicts with others outside the relationship. When we get into an argument with someone, we tend to minimize our own contribution to the dispute and overstate what our adversary did wrong. This can make the conflict worse. After being involved in a dispute, we’ll often turn to our partners to vent and seek support. 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. 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. On the other hand, among the participants who didn’t receive this sort of support from their partners, only 19% reported avoiding their adversaries. Receiving empathy from partners also was related to conflict escalation: After their partners took their side, 20% of par-

GREEN CARD SLAVERY?

Don’t put up with ABUSE anymore! Whether married or not, whether your spouse is a U.S. citizen or Green Card Holder, we can get a Green Card for you and your children PLUS a divorce. Call 855-768-8845 now for a consultation!

Party Rentals for All Occasions

lBounce Houses & Slides lFun Food Concessions lGames lPackage Specials lTent, Tables, Chairs & Other Party Essentials www.onestophop.com onestopshoprentals @gmail.com 848.999.4928

ticipants 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.

Long-term consequences 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.

What’s the lesson here? 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. 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 can be costly, 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. 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. The truth can hurt. But sometimes an objective, dispassionate confidant is what we need most. l

Edward Lemay is an Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Maryland. Michele Gelfand is a Distinguished University Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland

Hispanic Federation Applauds House for Passing Respect for Marriage Act, Urges Senate to Swiftly Pass the Bipartisan Bill

WASHINGTON:Hispanic Federation is thrilled with the House of Representatives' passage of the bipartisan Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, ensure protections for same-sex marriage at the federal level, and establish more legal protections for marriage equality. Hispanic Federation calls on the Senate to move quickly to pass the bill in a similar bipartisan manner. “We applaud the 267 House members who voted to pass this bipartisan bill to defend and ensure equality for same-sex couples wishing to marry. This bill is a proactive step to protect our existing LGBTQ+ rights. Having the government recognize marriage equality is also essential for immigration purposes. At Hispanic Federation, we recognize the need for our communities to live free of hatred and discrimination, and we understand the intersectionality of our lived experiences and histories as Latinos, immigrants, people of color, and queer folks and the necessity to protect and celebrate our communities’ diverse, intersectional identities and needs. As a gay man who was separated from my husband for ten years because of immigration barriers and a lack of legal recognition of our relationship, I can speak firsthand about the importance of these legal protections. We will continue to fight future legislative and judicial efforts that undermine our human rights to ensure that our families and future generations can thrive and live free of discrimination. We urge the Senate to swiftly pass the Respect for Marriage Act without equivocation,” said Frankie Miranda, President and CEO of Hispanic Federation. “Sadly, this bill is especially needed at a time when the shadow of the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson opens the door for undermining protections for private sexual acts, access to contraception, and same-sex marriage. All people, regardless of their race, sexual or gender orientation, should have the freedom to marry the person they love and be able to live and build their lives together, knowing that the government recognizes and respects their marriage. The recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade proves that the conservative majority Supreme Court is willing to undermine the constitutional grounds for equality and take away a right that is widely supported by the public. Today, more Americans than ever support LGBTQ+ rights, with Hispanic Americans showing the highest support (80%) among all racial and ethnic groups. 70% of Americans support samesex marriage, a record high since 2015. But since Justice Thomas already stated that the Supreme Court should revisit previous rulings that gave protections to same-sex marriage and relationships, the stakes cannot be higher. Our leaders must do everything in their power to ensure that marriage equality remains the law of the land,” added Laura M. Esquivel, Vice President, Federal Policy and Advocacy, Hispanic Federation. l

The GOP’s Cynical and Vicious Circle on Immigration Keeps Dreamers in Limbo

BY AMERICA’S VOICE

Washington, DC: A Dallas News story by Todd Gillman highlights the tenuous future of the popular and successful Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program due to Republican-led legal challenges. Yet, as the story makes clear, Republicans and their allies are citing the current focus and fears over the border as an excuse against a permanent legislative fix to protect Dreamers. It’s part of a vicious GOP circle. For well over a decade, Republicans have relied on the “border security first” excuse to try and justify inaction on legislation that would provide a path to citizenship for Dreamers and other long-settled undocumented immigrants. These efforts are now in overdrive, as the GOP’s fearmongering and falsehoods around the border is at a politicized fever pitch including the continued conflation of record-high apprehensions and border encounters with an “open border” and support for Trump era policies like Title 42 that make border enforcement more difficult. In combination with their antiimmigrant judicial activism, the border excuse for legislative inaction seeks to ensure that popular solutions are blocked while even temporary protections are stripped from Dreamers, making those with DACA – who have lived in the U.S. a minimum of 15 years and registered with the government multiple times –deportable. According to Douglas Rivlin, Director of Communication at America’s Voice: “It’s a vicious and cynical circle by Republicans that goes like this: fearmonger over the border and conflate border apprehensions with an ‘open’ border; seek to strip DACA protections from Dreamers in the courts relying on the “anti-immigrant judicial pipeline;” and cite the very border you’re politicizing as an excuse to justify blocking a popular and long overdue legislative solution for Dreamers and other long-settled immigrants. And one of the biggest perpetrators of this cycle is Texas’ own Senator John Cornyn, who’s long talked a big game at home only to continually be a roadblock to progress on an issue many of his donors support. It adds up to cynical politics at odds with what the country needs, Dreamers have earned, and what three-fourths of Americans support.” Below, find key excerpts of the Dallas News story, “Border crisis hobbles DACA progress in Congress, prolongs limbo for Dreamers: “Friday marked one year since a federal judge in Houston ruled the program unlawful, a victory for Texas and eight other states that had challenged DACA. The clamor for Congress to step in has only grown since then. Business and religious groups are demanding action. “Dreamers,” as they are often called — based on never-passed proposals in Congress called the DREAM Act — have grown increasingly anxious. The window is closing fast. An appeals court heard arguments earlier in

Editorial credit: Diego G Diaz / Shutterstock.com

July. By the time the Supreme Court settles the fate of DACA once and for all, Republicans will probably have regained control of the House. They’ll be in no mood to confer legal status on anyone… Republicans accuse President Joe Biden of signaling an open border by trying to reverse Donald Trump’s hard-line policies. Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz led a group of GOP senators on Friday to survey the situation around McAllen and keep up pressure on the White House. … The assessment that the border is “wide open” is disputed. If enforcement was so lax, says the White House and its defenders, how could so many people be caught? Rather, they argue, it’s the remnants of harsh Trump-era policies that force desperate people to wade the Rio Grande or find holes in the fencing — policies barring asylum-seekers from presenting themselves at ports of entry, or turning most away under Title 42, the pandemic-era emergency health order. “That doesn’t mean that the border is not secure. It means that it’s very much closed. That’s why people try to find other ways to cross. If we were to fix the asylum system and reopen the border, we wouldn’t have that problem,” said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, deputy director of federal advocacy at United We Dream. “The border situation is the way it is because Republicans made it so, so that they could have this narrative” about chaos at the border, she asserted, calling it “cynical” to punish Dreamers who have spent most of their lives in the United States for current problems at the border. Macedo do Nascimento herself could face deportation if DACA disappears. She was 14 when her family moved from Brazil to Southern California in 2001. Now 36, she’s never been back. Those kinds of tales make the plight of DACA-eligible immigrants the lowhanging fruit of immigration policy. Three-fourths of the public supports granting permanent legal status. “These are people’s lives,” Macedo do Nascimento said. “A vast majority of the American people really want to see Congress act on this and provide a pathway to citizenship for us.” l

The lawyer you hire, does make a difference!