Situation Section
When I was in the 9th grade, I had my first boyfriend. His name was Stone, and I was madly in love with him. We were friends for two years before we became a couple and officially started dating in November of 2014. In the beginning, everything was beautiful. We would text endlessly, go on dates, and be romantic towards each other; it was everything I could have ever hoped for, However, after six months of being together, we went through a situation that broke us up.
Around March, Stone’s best friend, Jan, got a girlfriend. Since they were inseparable, Stone and I started hanging out with him and his girlfriend. However, I couldn’t stand her; she was mean and stubborn. Therefore, I stopped hanging out with them. However, since Stone didn’t want to stop hanging with his best friend, he decided to endure Jan’s girlfriend. As a result, Stone divided his time between his best friend and me.
In the beginning, everything went smoothly. However, after a month, Stone got tired of dividing his time with his best friend and me; he wanted all of us to hang out together. However, since I didn’t want to hang out with them, he got distant towards me. He started spending most of his time with his best friend and would constantly ignore me. I felt hurt, it felt like he had chosen his bestfriend over me. Nevertheless, I decided to cut him some slack and hoped things would get better between us. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
A few weeks later, I decided to plan a date tofix our relationship.Therefore, I planned to go to a restaurant to talk about our issues. I told him about the date and he agreed to go. I was excited to hang out with him again and hopefully fix resolve our problems. However, an hour before our date, he told me he couldn’t make it because he was feeling sick. I was devastated, I had been waiting for this date all week long, however, I understood it wasn’t his fault.
Since I was no longer going to hang out with him, I decided to go to the mall with my sister to distract myself. While I was at the mall, I sawa guy that looked like my boyfriend hanging out with a girl. However, I decided to brush it off because he told me he was at his house feeling sick. Nonetheless, once I got a closer look at him, I realized it was my boyfriend.
At first, I couldn’t believe it, I thought there had to be some sort of explanation for this. I thought maybe he was getting medicine with his cousin or some other relative. Nevertheless, I decided to followthem around to see if anything suspicious happened. After following them for a while, I saw him kissing her by the food court.
At that moment, I was shattered. I couldn’t believe he cheated on me, I didn’t think he was capable of doing something so terrible. Apart of me wanted to go up to him and slap him. However, I refrained from doing so. I was too heartbroken to confront him, therefore, I waited until the next day.
The following day, I drove to his house to confront him. Once he opened the door, I told him we needed to talk. He seemed confused but agreed to it. Then, we both sat down on the sofa and without hesitation, I blurted out:
“Why did you lie to me about being sick? I saw you kissing another girl at the mall yesterday. Who even is she?How could you do this to me?”
“I’m sorry, she was the one who kissed me; it meant nothing. She’s just one of Jan’s friends. She means nothing to me, I swear. She came unto me and I tried to pull back, trust me. You’re the only want I want.” He replied
I couldn’t believe the words that came out of his mouth. It infuriated me that he kept lying straight to my face. I knew he was the one that made the move on her.
“Why do you keep lying? I know you made the move on her, I saw you.It is clear you don’t care about me anymore, I know we were going through a rough patch, but I didn’t think you were capable of stooping this low. You blew off our date and on top of that you cheated on me.” I said angrily
“Look, it’s true, I kissed her and I blew off our date. I just felt lonely, we weren’t on the best terms and I turned to her for comfort. I’m sorry, I feel terrible. The truth is hanging out with Jan has made me into a complete jerk. Please, forgive me. I don’t want to lose you.” He replied
“It just breaks my heart that you would do something like this. I was looking forward to going on our date and fixing things. I’m sorry, but I can’t forgive you. I can’ be with someone who can’t value our relationship. I just can’t trust you anymore. This is over, I never want to see you again.” I said
“Please, don’t leave. I made a mistake, please give me another chance. I promise I’ll never do it again.”
“I can’t, I’m sorry. I just can’t be with someone who cheats on their girlfriend when things get complicated. I just can’t forgive you so quickly. It’s too hard. Goodbye, Stone.”
Afterward, I quickly left his house and drove back home crying;I was completely heartbroken.I couldn’t believe that after everything we had, he would do something so terrible. I spent weeks crying and feeling depressed. It was one of the most heartbreaking experiences of my life.
After a while, he tried winning backbut I never gave him a chance. He didn’t deserve one, he caused me too much pain and I deserved better.
Thisbreakup was one of the most painful experiences of my life. It took me a long time, but I managed to get through it. Even though it was a horrible experience, it taught me more about relationships and helped me grow as a person. Thanks to this experience, I know I deserve someone who will truly value me and our relationship.
Theory Section
The theory I’ll be discussing throughout this paper will be Gerald Talley’s and Joseph Burger’s interpersonal control process theory. This theory is a state organizing processmeaning that the behavior is predicted to depend on which state a group is in and when the state changes, the behavior changes as well.
In this approach, a situation of action for a particular type of social process is abstractly defined and is therefore applicable to various kinds of concrete settings; interpersonal encounters, small groups, and organizational contexts. In a situation of action, a particular type of social process is activated and evolves as the actors orient themselves to each other and to the management of the problems, issues, or tasks with which they are confronted (Berger, 1988).
As part of the evolution of the process, relatively stable-other structures are formed. They arise out of the conditions and behaviors that activate the process, and they, in turn, enable the actors to engage each other further from specific positions within the structures. Given that the actors have managed, as best as they can, the situational demands that have activated the process, the process may become deactivated with self-other structures and the behaviors contingent on these structures devolving (Berger, 1988).
This theory begins with the conditions of the control situation. These consist of two or more actors, interactants oran audience. These actors may or may not have assigned each other personality characteristics. In this situation, there is a shared set of general and local norms that are relevant. There’s also a shared definition of the situation and assumed consensus between the actors. Lastly, there’s the state of normal interaction which can be: predictable, meaningful, accountable or influenceable, given the situation.
This process is activated by a set of unexpected events, major violations of and/or conflicts in expectations. Actors may, of course, manage these unexpected events to bypass or curtail the operation of a control process. The events may be ignored, normalized, or even be simply “unobserved.” We assume a situation in which these maneuvers either have not been used or have been used and have failed to curtail the process (Berger, 1988).
The unexpected events that activate this process are thus seen to be a set of major violations or conflicts in expectations that the actors have defined as “should-not-be” events which are mostly not perceived. In these events, the actor’s early impulse is to ignore and the next one may “normalize” the behavior.
Given the activation of the process, the actors are seen as engaging in a wide variety of behaviors that are simultaneously addressed to managing the problematic events and to defining the actors’ moral relations (Berger, 1988).
The outcome of these control behaviors is the formation of one or more of a finite number of control states, or self-other relation structures that each interactant negotiates for and seeks to assign to self and others. Such assignments may also involve acts of intimidation where anger and fear are manipulated in attempts to impose a structure on the immediate situation. In this process, the audience has the potential for major impact whether they are present or absent or have an active or passive role (Berger, 1988).
Once the actors are in these states, their subsequent behavior is determined by their positions in the structure. These are divided into three states of control: basic, conflict and deffering state.
In the basic control state, one actor has assumed and been granted the position of norm carrier, the person representing what is right, proper, or normal in the situation, whereas the other actor has been defined as and has accepted the position of norm violator, representing what is wrong, improper, or abnormal. From these positions, the actors’ control behaviors are defined and complement each other in what is almost an orchestrated interaction ritual (Berger, 1988).
The norm carrier’s moral indignation is assuaged by the violator’s expressions of remorse and guilt, his/her demands for future commitments are responded to by the violator’s externalizing situational attributions, his/her recitations of costs incurred are answered by the violator’s offers to redress these costs and his/her demands for future commitments are met by the violator’s willingness to accept such commitments (Berger, 1988).
During the conflict control state, the actor seeks to establish control states in which he/she is the norm carrier and the other is the violator. Not only is the behavior of one actor not being mollified or restrained by the complementary behavior of the other, but it is, in fact, being exacerbated and amplified by the behavior of the other. The moral indignation of one person is confronted with the moral indignation of the other, recitation of costs by one with recitation of costs by other, and demands for explanations and commitments on the part of the other. A consensual moral ordering of the interactants is not achieved in this control state (Berger, 1988).
On the deferring state, each interactant assumes the position of the violator and seeks to assign the position of norm carrier to the other. This is often a transitory state, enabling the interactants to move out of the conflict state by simultaneously assuming the claims of the other, thereby facilitating the closure of the control episode (Berger, 1988).
Once the control episode is concluded and the process is deactivated, the resolution occurs, which consists of many possible outcomes. One is that the process produces no explicit resolution. In this case, the problematic behavior that activated the process is not resolved by the interactants, and the consensual moral ordering of the interactants is not established. The interactants may distance themselves from each other, and they may act to encapsulate both the problematic events and the control episode itself (Berger, 1988).
Another common outcome is the construction of understandings. By virtue of the control episode, already existing understandings and rules may be reaffirmed, elaborated, and interpreted, and new local understandings and rules may be explicitly constructed. These outcomes, in turn, become inputs to future episodes of the control process (Berger, 1988).
Lastly, another possible result is one of the most significant outcomes of the process: the interactants come to assign personality characteristics to each other. These are broadly encompassing attributions, detached from situations and acts, that actors use to characterize the “true” nature of themselves and others and to define their “deeper” reality as persons (Berger, 1988).
In this process, audiences often play a major role. In coalition with the interactants, they can provide support to maintain these assignments. These personality assignments will affect future episodes of the control process: whether or not certain events will activate it, how control states are assigned, and what are its outcomes. The assignments will become inputs that can routinize the further operation of the process just as the process may come to sustain the assignments (Berger, 1988).
Analysis Section
The interpersonal control process theory satisfactorily explains the situation that happened between Stone and I. From the outlined situation, at the early stage of the relationship, everything worked well; we used to text endlessly and also go on dates. According to the interpersonal control process theory, this was the current state of the relation, where there is a shared set of general and local norms that are relevant.
Moreover, at this state, there is a shared definition of the situation and assumed consensus between the actors. Hanging out with my boyfriend’s friends at first was okay with me. However, the main reason for hanging out with them was because Stone was inseparable with his friend Jan; hence, I had to fix myself in their friendship by hanging out with them. This was fine with me since I always enjoyed spending time with my boyfriend. Therefore, at this state, there was a normal interaction between Stone and me.
According to the theory, when the state changes, the behavior also changes. This is evidenced by the change in my attitude towards Jan’s girlfriend. This was because I observed her with being mean and opinionated. That is, she always considered her opinions being right and argued unreasonably without considering our opinion on the topic. This behavior pushed me away, which led me to avoid hanging out with them.
This change in behavior was the start of our current state. In a situation of an action, a particular kind of social process is triggered and evolves as the parties orient themselves to one another and to the controlling of the issues or duties with which they are confronted.
From the situation, the event, which is the start of our breakup, could have been deactivated if the parties agreed to manage the situation. That is, even after I decided to stop hanging out with Stone and his friend, he continued to hang out with them. This resulted in him dividing his time between his friends and me. However, he tried to manage the situation by asking me to continue hanging out with them, in which I declined the offer.
At that moment, the process could have been deactivated if I agreed to continue hanging out with them. This is because most of the time, I would be spending with Stone. However, when I declined to be joining him with his friends, the process towards our break up kept on running. He started spending most of his time with his best friend, and he would regularly ignore me. This made me feel like he chose his bestfriend over me.
Nevertheless, I decided to brush it off and hoped things would get better. On the other hand, the event could have been prevented if Stone balanced his time between his friends and me. He made the situation be like his friends were more important to him than me. The growing distance between us exposed him to more factors that contributed to our break up.
The interpersonal control theory addresses that the process activated by unexpected incidents, major violations od, and/or conflicts in expectation.The involved parties may manage these unexpected incidences to restrain the operation of a control process. The occasion may be ignored, normalized, or even be simply “unobserved.”
The assumption, in this case, is that a situation in which these maneuvers either are used to or are not used to and have failed to restrain the process. In the situation, I planned a date with an aim if fixing our relationship. However, an hour before the occasion, Stone informed me he would not make it since he was feeling sick. This was our chance to fix our relationship, however, I had no option but to understand his situation.
However, I was not expecting to see Stone with another girl at the mall since he was feeling sick. Apart from unexpecting to see him with another girl, I never expected to see him kiss another girl besides me. This way, the major violation or cause of conflict between us.
This relation to the theory in that the unexpected events that initiate the process are considered to be a set of major violations or conflicts due to the expectations that the actors have defined as “should-not-be” events, which are usually not perceived. In these events, the actor’s early impulse is to ignore, and the next one may “normalize” the behavior.
At first, I did not want to believe he was the one at the mall; therefore, I decided to ignore the situation. At the same time, once I realized it was him, I didn’t want to believe he was cheating on me, therefore, I tried to normalize the behavior by thinking it was he was going to get medicine with his cousin or some other relative.
At the time, I didn’t want to confront him because I was too heartbroken. However, the next day, I confronted him at his house for lying to me about his sickness and for cheating on me with another girl.
This interaction started off in a basic control state and then ended in a resolution. The basic control states that one person acts as the norm carrier while the other is the norm violation. In our confrontation, I was the one acting as the norm carrier, while Stone was the norm violator. In my case, I invoked the norm of being faithful in a relationship and I confronted Stone about his cheating.
I also expressed moral indignation and I demanded an explanation for his actions. I also expressed my fear of him cheating on me again and how I couldn’t trust him anymore.
In Stone’s case, he accepted what he did was wrong, apologized for his behavior, offered me an explanation, and promised never to do it again. However, I decided I wasn’t going to forgive him. This led to the resolution of the conflict, in which I established a generalized moral characteristic of Stone as a cheater; therefore, I didn’t give him another chance and our relationship ended.
\
Comments/Discussion Section
Gerald Talley’s and Joseph Burger’s interpersonal control process theory involves the prediction of behavior based on the state a group is in. Also, the theory states that behavior changes as the state changes. Therefore, this theory is appropriate for understanding the situation discussed. However, this theory does not clearly address the internal and external locus of control. This involves addressing the causes of action, which may be either internal or external causes.
For instance, Gerald Talley’s and Joseph Burger’s interpersonal control process theory predicts how state changes with changes in behavior, but it does not address whether the changes result from inner or outer motives. Therefore, this forms a weakness to Gerald Talley’s and Joseph Burger’s interpersonal control process theory. More information is needed to make people understand clearly why some actions happened.
For instance, based on the theory, it is possible to predict how the relationship will progress in the future and the expected responses the actors can give when confronted for violating a certain norm. However, the theory fails to explain the inner or outer drives towards the performed actions. At first, the involved parties believe in common norms, but after some time, one or both of them end up violating the norms hence resulting in conflict.
After the creation of a conflict, the parties/party involved may try to make an effort to reconcile and resolve the conflict. However, this theory does not clearly address the drives towards trying to better the situation. Therefore, to handle this, the theory can include the three dimensions that include: inclusion, control, and openness.
On the other hand, the theories promote understanding as well as the prediction of numerous instances practically. For instance, the theory can be applied in business scenarios, such as in the supervision of employees. The supervisor can apply the knowledge in this theory to predict the behavior of employees. Observation of unexpected events can facilitate the detection of an issue within the organization. Therefore, necessary measures can be implemented to deactivate the process before causing injuries (Healy, 2014).
Based on the situation described in this paper, this theory can also be applied in determining the possible outcome of the occurrence of various events. People can apply this theory to preserve their relationship. The knowledge gained from this theory can help the involved parties to detect any event that can cause damage to the current situation. Therefore, by detecting such events, appropriate efforts can be implemented to mitigate any form of damage that may happen in future dates.
Additionally, the theory describes various ways in which actors can respond to various scenarios. Some actors may justify their mistakes, and others may give excuses for their actions. Such information can be relevant to various cases in that depending on the kind of response one party provides, the other party can be able to predict the kind of person he/she is dealing with.
In addition to Gerald Talley’s and Joseph Burger’s interpersonal control process theory, Schutz’s FIRO Theory of Needs can also be relevant in explaining various situations such as the one outlined in this paper. The theory was developed in an attempt to explain consistency in interpersonal behavior relationships and psychodynamic theories.
This theory focuses on what people can see rather than what can be inferred from words or performed actions(2019). According to Schutz, people do not act the same when in an interpersonal relationship as compared to when they are alone. Therefore, his theory defines behavior in these “interpersonal” situations.
Additionally, the theory suggests that three vital interpersonal needs are involved in influencing interpersonal behavior. This includes Inclusion, Control, and Affection. According to Schutz, the outlined three needs are adequate to clarify and predict interpersonal behavior.
Moreover, each category contains two mechanisms: expressed (proactive) and wanted (reactive) needs. Expressed needs refer to the needs a person behaves towards others while the wanted needs refer to the needs a person desires to be fulfilled by others(2019). The two terms directly relate to the notions of internal and external locus of control.
The need for inclusion is a drive that comes within a person. It involves maintaining and establishing an adequate relation with other people with respect to association and interaction. Inclusion may involve the engagement of a person with other people to avoid feeling lonely or a person wanting inclusion from others.
The need for control involves a person’s need to develop and maintain a relationship with others that is satisfactory with respect to control and power. While the need for affection involves a person’s need to develop and maintain a relationship with others, that is satisfactory with reverence to love and affection.
Throughout this paper, I learned how to critically view a relationship and apply it to a theory. In this case, I applied Gerald Talley’s and Joseph Burger’s interpersonal control process theoryto the situation I experienced with my ex-boyfriend.
The article “Directions in Expectation States Research” by Joseph Berger provided me all the information needed on this theory and helped me understand how an activating event can lead to a state of control and end in a resolution. Overall, this paper was challenging, however, it helped me view relationships in a sociological aspect and gain knowledge on other sociological theories.
References
(2019). Retrieved 17 November 2019, from https://www.afirstlook.com/docs/firo.pdf
Chen, M. W., & Rybak, C. (2017). Group leadership skills: Interpersonal process in group counseling and therapy. SAGE Publications.
(2019). Retrieved 17 November 2019, from https://psychology.edu/library/wp-files/uploads/2015/01/essay-five.120114.pdf
Healy, R. (2014). Corporate political behavior: Why corporations do what they do in politics. Routledge