Create Two Columns On A Piece Of Paper In The First Column

Create Two Columns On A Piece Of Paper In The First Column Write The

Create two columns on a piece of paper. In the first column, write the names of three individuals with whom you have different relationships (e.g., parent, best friend, classmate). For each person, use a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high) to indicate the degree to which each person likes to be in control and make decisions when you're together. In the second column, indicate the degree to which you like to be in control when you are with each person. How do these differences and similarities affect your relationship? How effective do you think you could be in changing the power if you wanted? Write at least one page to address this question. Give examples where necessary.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Understanding the dynamics of control and power within personal relationships is essential for fostering effective communication and mutual respect. The interplay between one’s desire for control and the perceived control exerted by others significantly influences relationship quality, stability, and growth. This essay explores these dynamics through a personal reflection on three different relationships, analyzing the degree of control preferences and the potential to influence power structures within these relationships.

Analysis of Control Dynamics

In my relationships, I have identified three key individuals: my mother, my best friend, and my college professor. For each, I assessed their interest in control and my own control preferences on a scale from 1 to 5.

The relationship with my mother is characterized by a high desire for control by both of us, with her rating a 4 and mine a 3. She tends to make decisions about household matters and my education, reflecting her high control preference. I, meanwhile, am somewhat flexible but prefer to have a say in major decisions affecting me, especially regarding my career and personal choices.

In my friendship with my best friend, her control preference is moderate (rating 3), while my control preference is slightly higher at 4. We both enjoy shared decision-making for activities like planning outings or making lifestyle choices, though I tend to take initiative more often, possibly due to my leadership tendencies.

My relationship with my college professor reveals a different dynamic. She exhibits a high control inclination (rating 5), reflecting her authority in academic settings, while my control preference is low (rating 2), as I tend to accept her guidance and decisions regarding coursework.

The differences and similarities in these dynamics influence our interactions. With my mother, overlapping high control preferences can lead to conflicts but also opportunities for compromise through open communication. In friendship, similar moderate control levels facilitate shared decision-making and mutual respect. In contrast, the power imbalance with my professor underscores the importance of respecting authority while remaining assertive when appropriate.

Potential for Changing Power Dynamics

The capacity to alter control levels within these relationships varies notably. With my mother, I believe I could increase my influence through assertive communication and demonstrating responsibility. For example, discussing my future plans openly and respectfully can shift some decision-making authority toward me without undermining her role as a parent.

In my friendship, the existing balance of control favors peer influence, making it relatively easier to sway decisions by proposing ideas or taking initiative. For instance, suggesting new activities or sharing opinions confidently can influence outcomes.

However, in hierarchical relationships like with my professor, changing control is more challenging due to institutional authority and established roles. Nevertheless, asserting my perspective respectfully and demonstrating competence can gradually influence her perceptions of my capabilities, as I have experienced in collaborative projects.

The overall effectiveness of changing power dynamics depends on the context, individual personalities, and the willingness of the other party to adapt. In relationships grounded in equality, influence can be fostered through open dialogue and mutual respect. Conversely, in authority-based relationships, change requires patience, consistency, and strategic communication.

Conclusion

Navigating control and power within personal relationships is complex but essential for personal growth and healthy interactions. Recognizing the existing control dynamics allows for strategic approaches to influence and improve these relationships. While some relationships lend themselves more readily to change, others require careful, respectful efforts to shift power balances effectively.

References

• Feeney, B. C., & Noller, P.. (1996). Adult attachment, relationship quality, and everyday stressors. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 199-220). Guilford Press.
• Gottman, J. M. (1994). Why marriages succeed or fail: And how to make yours last. Simon and Schuster.
• Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3–34.
• Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1983). Marital interactions: Effects on physiologic and subjective emotional responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 536–551.
• Surra, C. A., & Hughes, D. L. (1997). Marital control and decision-making: A review of the literature. Journal of Family Psychology, 11(3), 312–324.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. John Wiley & Sons.
• Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Westen, D., & Gabbard, G. O. (2002). Psychoanalytic theory and clinical utility. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 50(3), 805–835.
• Yardley, L. (2000). Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychology & Health, 15(2), 215–228.