Divorce as a Result of Family Conflict Essay Example

is connected with the fact that married people face today more problems, than they expected, going to marry. Marriage connects two people with the different predilections, the different family environment, different level of a maturity, different temperaments under one roof.

Financial problems can pose as one more problem in the family relations. When we are speaking about the children, conflicts under different educational approaches grow. All these distinctions can bring the big bitterness. If they are not solved, they can easily lead to family disintegration, emotional problems, violence, or sometimes both partners begin to search for more attention out of door. In the present work we will contemplate a conflict problem as factor of divorce both from the point of view of the general, and from the point of view of family psychology.

There is no doubt that conflicts exist almost in all families. ? J. Antsupov and A. I. Shipilov, cite the data that in 80-85 % of families there are conflicts. In the remained 15-20 % certain level of intensity is fixed. However it is necessary to pay attention to what value each member of a family give to conflicts. The problem of the conflict within the limits of the general psychology was studied by such outstanding domestic and foreign scientists, as B. Hasan, A. J. Antsupov, M. Dojch, R. Govd. From a position of family psychology the conflict studied J. Gottman, S. Kratohvil, I. Dorno, J. Bowlby. Subject of the given work is conflict consideration as divorce factor in a family, and object of studying is the conflict.

The purpose of the present work is to study the psychological essence of a phenomenon of the

conflict in family relations and a choice of a way of its overcoming. According to the work purpose, it is necessary for us to solve following roblems:

• To conduct theoretical research of a problem of the conflict;
• To consider overcoming and resolution of conflicts ways;
• To show that people endured rupture of relations, use a specific strategy of overcoming conflicts and have peculiar features of the person.

Section 1. Family conflict as a subject of psychological research

Psychological approaches to family studying

A family and marriage, their kinds Researchers have attempted to define the family based on constructs that are larger than the family.

For example, the family has been viewed as a close relationship or a social group. Difficulty and theoretical problems related to defining family or families have led some to seek these broader constructs that transcend the definition of the family, from their view leading to a higher level of understanding (Goode 1959; Kelley et al. , 1983; Scanzoni et al. 1989). For example, a close relationship defined as "strong, frequent, and diverse, interdependence that lasts over a considerable period of time" (Kelley 1983, p. 38) is a broader construct than family.

This has been viewed as an encompassing term that would define most families. However, this generalizing concept, although applicable to most families, does not apply to all families—for example, the family where a parent is absent and does not want to be present. It also includes others who are not part of the family such as friends and co-workers. The family has also been viewed as a form of social group, a group held together by a common purpose. Although the family is indeed a

social group, it is a social group that is very distinct when compared to other social groups.

Distinctions between a family and a group have been discussed by researchers (Day, Gilbert, Settles, and Burr 1995) and include the following:

• family membership may be involuntary, and the connection may be more permanent;
• actions of family members can be hidden and thus there is a safe environment provided for openness and honesty but also an environment for dark activities such as abuse, addictions, and neglect;
• family members may be more intensely bonded through emotional ties;
• there is often a shared family paradigm or world view; and
• there is frequently a biological connectedness that is not present in other social roups.

The review of these two encompassing constructs makes it evident that although larger constructs are useful in understanding the family, they do not specifically define family. These broad constructs allow for the inclusion of those not part of the family and the exclusion those who are part of the family. To address the problem of excluding family members, some researchers have attempted to develop definitions of the family by accounting for any type of family. Basing the definition of family on theoretical perspectives means that the definition of the family will vary based on the theoretical perspective that one takes.

Multiple definitions of family have been formulated from particular theoretical perspectives (Doherty et al. 1993). Because of the variety of definitions that can be linked with specific theories, Suzanna Smith (1995) was able to create a different definition of the family for each of eight conceptual approaches. For example, the definition of family for symbolic interaction theory is a unit

of interacting personalities (Smith 1995). Those defining the family from a feminist perspective would assume that there are broad differences among marriages and families, and these differences are greater than the similarities.

The traditional definition of the family would be rejected with emphasis on change and diversity (Thompson and Walker 1995). However, most theories are not specifically directed at defining the family. David Klein and James White (1996) have pointed out that the family developmental theory is the only theory where the focus is specifically on the family. Other approaches can be and are used to study other social groups and institutions; in contrast, the developmental approach is microsystem oriented.

According to this theory, family members occupy socially defined positions (e. g. , daughter, mother, father, or son) and the definition of family changes over the family career. Initially, the stages of change discussed in the literature related directly to the traditional nuclear family. According to Paul Mattessich and Reuben Hill (1987), some of the original theorists in the area, family life stage was based on changes in family size, age composition, and the occupational status of the breadwinner(s).

The stages of family development identified were: childless couples, childbearing families, families with infants and preschool children, childbearing families with grade-school children, families with teenagers, families with young adults still at home, families in the middle years, and aging families. In the 1990s, researchers updated this theory to include families defined in other ways over the family careers (Rodgers and White 1993; Klein and White 1996; White 1991).

These authors specify the significance of change that is related to other transitions, such as cohabitation, births in later stages, separation, divorce,

remarriage, or death. Thus, how one defines one's own family is not static, but changes with the addition of family members through close relationships, birth, adoption, and foster relationships or the loss of family members because of death or departure. T. Parsons (1943), a structural-functionalist, discussed the development of the family by using more generic family definitions that apply to all members of society.

According to Parsons, one is born into the biological family, or one's family of origin. If the individual is raised in this family, it becomes their family of orientation. However, if the marriage dissolves, or the child is given up for adoption, the new family of which the individual is part becomes the family of orientation. However, by leaving this family to marry or cohabitate, for example, the individual becomes part of the family of procreation. This term is somewhat dated because in several types of relationships such as childless or gay and lesbian relationships, procreation may not be a part of the relationship.

With the move from the family of origin or orientation to family of procreation, the individual's original nuclear family, or their closest family members, become part of their kinship group or their extended family, while their new partner or child become part of their new nuclear family. The North American family changes and develops with new members being added (e. g. , new partners, birth, adoption) or replaced (e. g. , foster parents, nonbiological parents, partners) over their lifetime (McGoldrick and Carter 1982). Thus, this terminology was developed to describe these family changes.

It should be noted, however, that this theoretical terminology is most appropriate for the North American population.

As has been pointed out by several writers, the basic family unit in non-North American and non-European countries is the extended family rather than the nuclear family (Ingoldsby and Smith 1995; Murdock 1949). Thus, although theoretical definitions are important for research purposes, conceptual approaches are not in themselves true or false but are rather a set of assumptions with which to examine social phenomena. They may not apply to all situations or cultures.

Although useful in doing research, definitions other than theoretical definitions may be more suitable in other situations. For example, practical or situational definitions of the family may be more appropriate in specific situations and circumstances. Inclusive definitions are those that are so broad that no one's perception of family will be excluded. For example, James Holstein and Jaber Gubrium (1995) illustrate an inclusive definition of the family by utilizing a phenomenological and ethnomethodological theoretical perspective in an attempt to understand how individuals experience reality.

Family, based on this perspective, is each individual's interpretation of who their kin are. The basic argument is that meanings and interpretations have no connection to rules, norms, or culture. Thus, the definition of family is based on the individual's local subculture and is his or her own reality. For example, Barbara Rothberg and Dan Weinstein illustrate an inclusive definition that can encompass all local subcultures by stating that: "the constellation of family is limited only by the limits of participants' creativity" (1966, p. 57).

Inclusive definitions are reasoned and scholarly attempts to deal with the increasing diversity of primary or close relationships in postmodern societies. According to David Cheal (1993), the 1980s and 1990s have brought a shift from defining

the family as the modern family to defining it as the postmodern family. The family is no longer a fixed form; it is now more free form. The term family has been replaced by families and has become the embodiment of whatever the individual perceives to be family. Based on this type of definition, the family becomes whatever the individual wants it to be.

The definition of family is thus dependent on every feature of an individual's life, including beliefs, culture, ethnicity, and even situational experiences. Although this definition type is extremely universal, it is also very nebulous, thus making research on the family difficult. The researcher is confronted with the problem of no longer being able to define what family is, as it can become anything the individual wants it to be. For this reason, other researchers have proposed definitions of the family that focus on similarities among families and thus allow for theoretical as well as applied research.

Also let us present some definitions of the family of home psychologists. A. G Kharchev describes the family as institutional community, developed on the basis of marriage and generated by its legal and moral responsibility of spouses for the health of children and their upbringing. According to N. V. Solov'eva family is a small social group, the most important form of organization of personal life, based on the marital union and family connections, i. e. relations between husband and wife, parents and children living together and leading a joint household.

V. V. Stolin says that family - is "an open system, susceptible to external influences. " While speaking about the types of the families the most recognized of

these families is the nuclear family. The term nuclear family can be defined simply as a wife/mother, a husband/father, and their children. However, this straightforward structural definition is surrounded by a cloud of ambiguity and controversy. Most of the debates have centered around three questions. First, is the nuclear family universal—found in every known human society?

Second, is the nuclear group the essential form of family—the only one that can carry out the vital functions of the family (especially, rearing the next generation) or can other family patterns (e. g. , single mothers, single fathers, two women, or two men) be considered workable units for fulfilling these functions? The third issue concerns the link between the nuclear family household and industrial society. In the old days, before work moved outside the home to factories and offices, did parents and children live together under one roof with grandparents and other relatives?

Did the nuclear family break away from this extended family system as a result of industrialization? The debate over the universality and necessity of the nuclear family began in the early twentieth century. Pioneer anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski (1913) stated that the nuclear family had to be universal because it filled a basic biological need—caring for and protecting infants and young children. No culture could survive, he asserted, unless the birth of children was linked to both mother and father in legally based parenthood. Anthropologist George P.

Murdock (1949) elaborated on the idea that the nuclear family is both universal and essential: "Whether as the sole prevailing form of the family . . . or as the basic unit from which more complex families form, [the nuclear family] exists

as a distinct and strongly functional group in every known society" . The debate about the nuclear family and industrialism centered around the writings of one of the leading sociologists of the post-World War II era, Talcott Parsons (1955). The nuclear unit, he argued, fits the needs of industrial society. Independent of the kin network, the "isolated" nuclear family is free to move as the economy demands.

Further, the intimate nuclear family can specialize in serving the emotional needs of adults and children in a competitive and impersonal world. In later years, the assumptions about the family held by Malinowski, Murdock, and Parsons have been challenged by family sociologists as well as by anthropologists, historians, feminist scholars, and others. Research in these fields has emphasized the diversity of family not only across cultures and eras but also within any culture or historical period. Anthropologists have pointed out that many languages lack a word for the parent-child domestic units known as families in English.

For example, the Zinacantecos of southern Mexico identify the basic social unit as a house, which may include one to twenty people (Vogt 1969). In contrast, historical studies of Western family life have shown that nuclear family households were extremely common as far back as historical evidence can reach, particularly in northwestern Europe—England, Holland, Belgium, and northern France (Gottlieb 1993). These countries have long held the norm that a newly married couple moves out of their parents' homes and sets up their own household.

Despite the continuity of form, however, different social classes, ethnic groups, religious persuasions, and geographical regions have had different practices and beliefs with regard to parent-child relations, sexuality, family gender roles,

and other aspects of family life. Family life also has changed in response to social, economic, and political change. Many scholars believe that in the eighteenth century and the early nineteenth century, the modernizing countries of Western Europe witnessed a transformation of family feeling that resulted in "the closed domesticated nuclear family. The new family ideal, Lawrence Stone (1977) argued, prescribed domestic privacy and strong emotional attachments between spouses and between parents and children.

On the other hand, some scholars have argued that strong emotional bonds between family members have existed for centuries, and others have argued that the "closed domesticated nuclear family" was a middle-class ideal that came to be applied slowly and incompletely outside that class. In Eastern Europe, however, the nuclear norm did not prevail. Households were expected to contain other relatives besides the nuclear unit (i. . , a third generation or a parent's sibling and possibly that person's spouse and children). It is true that in those parts of Europe about half of the households at any particular time were nuclear, but this unit served as just a stage the family might pass through. As these examples show, it is important to distinguish between the nuclear family as a cultural symbol and as an observable domestic group (Schneider 1968). The nuclear family is a symbol deeply rooted in Western culture; it is represented in art, family photographs, advertising, and television.

However, the family ideal of any particular culture does not necessarily describe the social realities of family life. For example, the nuclear family remains the preferred cultural pattern in the United States despite the fact that the proportion of nuclear family households

is smaller than in the past (Skolnick 1991). The persistence of this ideal is reflected in the fact that most divorced people remarry. Further, there is no evidence that most single mothers prefer to raise their children by themselves.

In most Western nations, particularly the United States, the wish to become a parent at some time in one's life is virtually universal. Today's longevity means that the parent-child relationship can last fifty years or more. It remains a central attachment in most people's lives. In any particular time and place, families have always been more varied than the prevailing image of what the ideal family should be. However, although family types are even more diverse than in the past, most contemporary families are still variations on the traditional nuclear family pattern (e. g. the two-job family, the empty nest couple with grown children, or the blended family). An unsettled period of family transition has resulted from major shifts in economic, demographic, political, and cultural trends in the industrialized world and beyond. These changes have altered people's lives dramatically, but other institutions of society—government, business, religion—have not yet caught up with the new realities. The traditional Western concept of the nuclear family as the only normal, natural family has had a profound influence on research, therapy, and public policy.

It has encouraged the tendency to define any departure from that arrangement as unhealthy or immoral. This concentration on a single, universally accepted pattern has blinded students of behavior to historical precedents for multiple legitimate family arrangements. One more type of families is the extended family. The term extended family has several distinct meanings. First, it is used synonymously

with joint family. Second, in societies dominated by the nuclear family, it is used to refer to kindred who does not belong to the conjugal family.

Often there could be many generations living under the same roof, depending on the circumstances. People living together as an extended family occasionally feel a greater security and belonging. This is an advantage of extended type of family because this family contains more people to serve as resources during crisis and provides more role models for behavior of values. Currently the single parent family is one of the "fastest growing family structures" of the past decade (Benokraitis 35). This type of family tends to be temporary because the single parent tends to remarry or marries for the first time.

The single mother is the most common form of this type of family. The institution of marriage is found in all societies. In the United States, marriage means stabilized patterns of norms and roles associated with the mutual relationship between husband and wife. It joins together a man (or men) and a woman (or women) in a special kind of social and legal arrangement that serves several purposes for a society. While this definition fits what is meant by marriage in the United States and other Western nations, it is not broad enough to encompass the essential features of marriage across all cultures.

If we turn to the domestic scientists, in the opinion of A. G. Harchev marriage is a "historically changing social form of the relationship between man and woman, through which a society organizes and authorizes their sex life and establishes their marital and parental rights and responsibilities. " There are

several types of marriage. Arranged marriage (pragmatic). An arranged marriage is a marriage in which neither the bride or the groom has any official say over the selection of their future spouses. However, in an arranged marriage, both parties give full consent to the marriage.

Arranged marriages have been a successful traditional aspect of family life in many cultures for many years. Boston marriage. Originally used in the 19th century to describe two women living together, a Boston Marriage still is the term used to describe two women who decide to live together in a marriage-like relationship. The relationship between the women is not necessarily sexual but does involve a committed friendship.

Civil marriage

A civil marriage is one where the marriage ceremony has a government or civil official perform the ceremony. A civil marriage is a wedding that takes place without any religious affiliation and meets the legal requirements of the locale. Some countries require that a couple have their first marriage ceremony be a civil ceremony in a public location and that the ceremony is open to the public. The couples can then be married in a church and have a religious ceremony performed by a member of the clergy. Companionate marriage. A companionate marriage is based on the spouses having mutual interests in their careers and children.

Spouses in companionate marriages believe in the equality of men and women and believe their roles in marriage are interchangeable. Both individuals in a companionate marriage need self-awareness and self-confidence in order for the marriage to be successful. Without trust, friendship, commitment, and shared values, a companionate marriage may be difficult to maintain. Forced marriage. A forced marriage

is a marriage that is performed under duress and without the full and informed consent or free will of both parties. Being under duress includes feeling both physical and emotional pressure.

Some victims of forced marriage are tricked into going to another country by their families. Victims fall prey to forced marriage through deception, abduction, coercion, fear, and inducements. A forced marriage may be between children, a child and an adult, or between adults. Forced marriages are not limited to women and girls, as boys and men are also forced to marry against their will. Interfaith marriage. An interfaith marriage is a marital union in which the partners believe and belong to different religious traditions. Intrafaith marriage.

Intra-faith marriage is a marital union in which the partners belong to the same religion but follow different traditions within that faith. Monogamy. The practice of remaining faithful, sexually, to one person at a time. Also refers to having one spouse at a time. Open marriage. An open marriage is the term often used to describe a marriage relationship where the husband and wife have no reservations about one another being sexually involved with other people. Although the 1972 book, Open Marriage, is often considered the source for the term open marriage, George and Nena O'Neill only briefly mentioned extramarital sex in marriage.

Polygamy

Having more than one spouse at a time, such as one man with several wives or one woman with several husbands. Although polygamy was criminalized by Abraham Lincoln in 1862, it is estimated that 30,000 individuals continue to be involved in polygamous relationships. Some reports put the number of polygamists at 100,000. Polygyny. Having several wives at the

same time. Polyandry. Having several husbands at the same time. Romantic Marriage. A Romantic marriage is one in which the couple getting married has an emotional bond with one another prior to their wedding.

A couple in a romantic marriage loves one another and cares for one another deeply both before and after their wedding. 1. 1. 2. Quality of marriage relations, the reasons of divorces Mary Anne Fitzpatrick (1988) argued that a variety of couple-types exist and that each couple-type's attitudes and beliefs toward their partner and relationship hold particular implications for their responses to conflict. It is important to consider the variety of couple-types that exist for several reasons. First, embedded within the couple-types are demonstrations of adherence to gender roles.

Second, couple-type relates to how spouses respond in conflict situations, which, third, holds implications for couple communication patterns and for the satisfaction/dissatisfaction of the relationship. Traditional couple-types. Men and women who are traditionals are highly interdependent and emphasize doing things together versus autonomously. Traditionals hold traditional gender role beliefs (e. g. , the woman takes the husband's last name when married) and hold the stability of the relationship in high esteem.

Traditionals use positive communication behaviors during conflict (e. g. , discuss issues keeping the relationship in mind, not using threats), tend not to argue over petty issues, but do openly engage about salient issues (Fitzpatrick 1988). Independent couple-types. Independents value both connection and personal autonomy. They actively discuss many aspects of their relationship and hold nontraditional beliefs about relationships (i. e. , do not espouse the belief that the "man is in charge") (Fitzpatrick 1988).

Independents actively engage in conflict over minor and major issues,

argue for personal positions, and offer reasons for accepting their positions rather than rely on a oneup/one-down solution by virtue of gender (Witteman and Fitzpatrick 1986). Separate couple-types. Separates, unlike independents or traditionals, are not interdependent and avoid interaction, particularly conflict. Separates are likely to withdraw or give in during early stages of conflict because active engagement in conflict involves interaction and a degree of interdependence.

However, when separates do engage in conflict, the interaction can be quite hostile (Fitzpatrick 1988). Mixed couple-types. Approximately half of couple-types do not neatly fall into a specific category such that both husband and wife are traditionals, independents, or separates. Rather, many couples represent a meshing of two different types. The most common mixed couple-type is the separate husband and the traditional wife (Fitzpatrick 1988). Several implications for this couple-type exist in terms of gender role adherence, engagement in conflict, and effects on the satisfaction of the relationship.

Family problems come in many sizes and shapes. They range from minor annoyances, such as spats between children, to life-threatening situations such as physical abuse by a parent. They may be brief events that disappear in minutes or recurring disputes that last a lifetime. Whatever their form and duration, problems are distinguished by the presence of negative experiences for some family members. The main indicators of the dissolution of the family:

• Commitment Issues.
• Finances.
• Differing Child-Rearing Styles
• Poor communication
• Change in priorities
•  Sexual problems
• Addictions
• Infidelity
• Physical Abuse
• Emotional Abuse Incompatible Personalities
• Conflict and Difficulty dealing with conflict
• Failed expectations of the spouse
• Changing ideologies about family life
• Easing of divorce laws Thus, quality of family relationships affect divorces in many ways.

Psychological understanding

of the conflict

Conflict definition, its kinds and strategy of the solution of conflicts Under the conflict, we understand the most severe way of resolving significant contradictions arising in the process of social interaction and is usually accompanied by negative emotions and feelings experienced by them in relation to each other.

However, any conflict is embodied in the interaction of opposing values, attitudes, motives. “Psychological Dictionary” defines the conflict as “intractable contradiction associated with acute emotional experience. " There are different classifications of conflict, which is quite natural: the diversity and complexity of this phenomenon can choose different reasons for their characteristics. Depending on the features of the conflicting parties it is agreed to allocate:

• intrapersonal conflict - a clash between roughly equal in strength, but oppositely directed interests, needs.
• interpersonal conflict - two or more members of one group pursuing incompatible goals and realize the conflicting values?? , or both, in a conflict are against their efforts to achieve the same goal, which can be achieved by either party.
• between individuals and groups - a clash of conflicting interests, needs, values ??
• between individuals and groups of people.
• intergroup conflict - when the conflicting parties are the social groups pursuing conflicting goals.

There are many different typologies of family conflicts.

The most common include functional conflicts (the emergency of acceptable solutions and a sense of satisfaction) and destructive conflicts (dissatisfaction fatal collision conflict, which remains the emotional stress). Another typology of family conflict was proposed by R. D Govd. These are the types of conflicts which differ in dynamics: - Actual conflicts. Expressed in the bright flares. Caused by any immediate cause. - Progressing conflicts. Arise when people

can not adapt to each other, which results growing of tension. - Habitual conflict.

Associated with longstanding tensions between the couple, who, because of stereotypical behavior can no longer be practically eliminated by them. M. Deutch suggested to consider the following types of conflicts: 1. True conflict exists objectively and perceived adequately (a wife wants to use the spare room as a pantry, and her husband - as a photo lab) 2. Incidental, or conditional, a conflict that can be easily resolved, although it is not understood by the participants (spouses do not realize that there is space somewhere). 3.

Shifted the conflict - when something completely different is hiding behind a "true" conflict (a dispute over a vacant room, the couple is actually in conflict because of the role of the wife in the family). 4. Incorrectly attributed conflict - when, for example, a wife berates her husband for what he did, performing her own disposal, of which she has already forgotten. 5. The latent (hidden) conflict. Based on the perceived by the spouses contradiction, which nevertheless exists objectively. 6. A false conflict exists only because of the perception of spouses, without objective reasons.

In this connection there is number of typical options for completing conflicts. Denial or Withdrawal - With this approach, a person attempts to get rid of conflict by denying that it exists, i. e. simply refuses to acknowledge it. When the issue and the timing are not critical, denial may be a productive way to deal with conflict. Suppression or Smoothing Over - A person using suppression plays down differences and does not recognize the positive aspects of handling the conflict openly. Suppression

may be employed when it is more important to preserve a relationship than to deal with a relatively insignificant issue.

Power or Dominance - Power may be vested in one's authority or position, and may take the form of a majority (as in voting) or a persuasive minority. Power strategies result in winners and losers. In some instances, especially where other forms of handling conflict are not effective, power strategies may be necessary. Compromise or Negotiation - Although regarded as a virtue, compromise has some serious drawbacks. Such bargaining often causes both sides to assume initial inflated positions, since they are aware that they are going to have to "give a little" and want to buffer the loss.

Still, there are times when compromise makes sense, such as when resources are limited or a speedy decision needs to be made.

Integration or Collaboration - This approach suggests that all parties to the conflict recognize the interests and abilities of the others. Each individual's interests, positive intentions and desired outcomes are thoroughly explored in an effort to solve the problems in a maximizing way. Participants are expected to modify and develop their original views as work progresses. Participants come to appreciate that the apparent presenting problem does not need to limit their discussions.

Participants are encouraged to express the full breadth and depth of their interests, with each participant seeking to identify "value" that they can bring to the discussion and the maximized satisfaction of underlying interests and intentions.

Specificity of conflicts in family relations

Three characteristics distinguish family conflict from other types: intensity, complexity, and the duration of relationships. First, relationships between family members are typically the closest, most emotionally intense

of any in the human experience (Bowlby 1982).

The bonds between adult partners, between parents and children, or between siblings involve the highest level of attachment, affection, and commitment. There is typically daily contact for many years that bonds individuals together. When serious problems emerge in these relationships, the intense positive emotional investment can be transformed into intense negative emotion. A betrayal of a relationship, such as an extramarital affair or child sexual abuse, can produce hate as intense as the love that existed prior to the betrayal. It is well known that a high percentage of murders are committed within family groups.

Family conflicts are typically more intense than conflict in other groups. This intensity means that managing conflicts may be more difficult in families, and that their consequences can be more damaging. The second distinguishing feature of family conflicts, complexity, is especially important for understanding their sometimes-baffling characteristics. Why do battered wives stay with their husbands? Why do most abused children want to stay with the abusive parent rather than be placed elsewhere? One answer is that positive emotional bonds outweigh the pain involved with the conflicts (e. g. Wallace 1996). These are examples of the most pertinent type of complexity in family relationships—ambivalence. The person is loved, but they do things that produce hate as well.

The web of family relationships includes dimensions such as love, respect, friendship, hate, resentment, jealousy, rivalry, and disapproval. Several of these dimensions are typically present in any given family relationship. Frequent family conflict may not be a problem if there are even more frequent displays of bonding behaviors. The course of conflict often depends on which dimensions are active

in a relationship.

Recognizing the multiple dimensions of conflict is a prerequisite for helping families deal more effectively with their problems. The third distinguishing feature of family conflict is the duration of the relationships, the duration of some conflicts, and the long-term effects of dysfunctional conflict patterns. Family relationships last a lifetime (White 2001). A person's parents and siblings will always be their parents and siblings. Thus serious conflictual relationships within families can continue for longer periods. Such extended exposure increases the risk of harm from the conflict.

It is possible to escape such relationships through running away from home, divorce, or estrangement from family ties. But even after contact has been stopped, there are residual psychological effects from the conflict. Work on family conflict has led to some important findings relevant to prevention and treatment. One is that the form of the conflict is as important as how much of it occurs. Some families have a lot of conflict but still function well. This is possible because conflicts are embedded in the context of other behaviors. One significant factor is whether or not the conflicts are resolved (Cummings and Davies 1994).

High rates of conflict may not be damaging if most of the episodes are resolved. Another key factor is how much positive behavior is exchanged when the family is not fighting. John Gottman (1995) has reported that if there are five positive behaviors for each negative behavior, then relationships are still healthy. As a result of such findings, family conflict is not always considered to be a problematic pattern. However, if conflict occurs in forms that are physically or psychologically damaging, then intervention is necessary. Family

conflict often involves more than two individuals.

A third family member can be drawn into dyadic conflict to take sides in disputes. Multiple members may join forces and work as a team to win or settle disagreements. Such coalitions may be short-lived or become a permanent part of family life. They are common and can be beneficial. For example, parents typically side with each other in disputes with their children. This helps parents maintain order and is especially useful in large families. Coalitions add a complex dimension to dispute dynamics and strategy. Skill in forming alliances can be especially valuable to individuals with little power.

As with other features of conflict, coalitions can be carried to extremes. Scapegoating, a recurrent, excessive alliance between parents against a child or children, is known to be damaging to development. Certain coalitions disrupt healthy family functioning. An on-going strong alliance between one parent and a child against the other parent can threaten the interparental relationship. Conflict style influences the kinds of disputes families have. It refers to specific tactics and behavioral routines individuals or families typically use when conflicts occur. Individuals have conflict styles of their own (Sternberg and Dobson 1987).

These develop through repeated exposure to conflict situations in the family of origin. The combination of individual styles and the family system results in a family style of conflict. For example, one family member may dominate in all disputes and forcefully settle all conflicts. This is a power assertive style that is based on the power relations that are part of the family system. Another style involves endless bickering in which any kind of settlement or resolution is rare. Such an

irrational style often creates a negative family climate that erodes positive family bonds.

A family may avoid any kind of conflict at the first sign of trouble. Conflict may be seen as being too stressful or simply inappropriate among family members. Such an avoidant style often includes covert conflict in which secretive actions lead to negative consequences for opponents (Buehler et al. 1998). A constructive conflict style is an especially important type because it openly addresses the complaints of family members and moves toward rational changes that eliminate the problem. Several other conflict styles have been identified and research in this area continues.

Furthermore, it should be noted that each family is unique and thus will have unique elements in its conflict style. But most families tend to use one of the main styles identified above. Family conflict styles are learned in childhood. Years of exposure to the same patterns indoctrinate the child with the family's conflict style (e. g. , Patterson, Reid, and Dishion 1992). The parents or primary caregivers usually establish the style for the children. Years of participation in the conflict style allow the child to learn the intricacies of using the style to protect or extend their interests.

Acquiring a conflict style defines the orientation one brings to any dispute situation. For example, a child in a family with a power assertive style will tend to see any disagreement as a zero-sum game. There must be one winner and one loser. One dominates, the other submits. One must strive to use whatever power one has to defeat the opponent, who is striving to defeat you. Learning a conflict style thus includes assumptions about how

interpersonal relationships should be conducted. Conflict styles learned in the family are used by children as they interact with peers and others outside of the family context.

This can create difficulties in developing relationships with peers. For example, a child who is an aggressive power-assertive bully in the family may have difficulties making friends with peers who reject that style of interaction. The concept of conflict style has been useful because it clarifies the assessment of problematic interaction patterns in families. In addition it provides a framework for improving conflict management in families. Some family conflict styles tend to interfere with healthy functioning. Power assertive, irrational, and avoidant styles can be especially troublesome.

Getting troubled families with such styles to use elements of the constructive conflict style can improve conflict management and problems related to it. Considerable success has been achieved with conflict management training as a component in individual, couple, and family therapy (Vuchinich 1999). However, conflict style is only one part of the family system. As a result, conflict patterns may be resistant to change unless other elements of the family system are also changed. It is important to acknowledge this fact during efforts to improve conflict management in troubled families.

Sibling rivalry has long been recognized as a key element in family conflict. The concept assumes that parents or primary caregivers have a limited amount of affection to give to their children (Neborsky 1997). Children therefore tend to compete for the parental affection, which they want and need. Through that competition, siblings can develop ambivalence toward each other. Siblings have affection for each other, but also some enmity. If parents provide sufficient affection for both

siblings, the rivalry dissipates. But if they do not, then the rivalry can be a primary feature of sibling and family relationships through adulthood.

In such cases siblings strive to out-do each other to win the approval of a parent or caregiver. Often the siblings are not consciously aware that their striving is based on sibling rivalry. Harmless sibling rivalry is common in most families. But in some cases it fuels long-term destructive conflict between siblings. The negative impact of excessive sibling rivalry can be seen from a developmental perspective (Brody et al. 1992). Rivalry can erode the positive interaction dynamics that usually occurs between young siblings. Siblings can help each other learn to walk, talk, share, and show support.

Intense rivalry interrupts these processes. In addition, a conflictual relationship with a sibling can be the template for relationships with peers outside the family. Troubled peer relations in childhood are known to be a precursor of negative outcomes later on. The key to avoiding problems with sibling rivalry is providing all children in the family with adequate emotional support. Most parents try to treat their children equally. This is an important goal because recent research has shown that differential parental treatment of siblings is linked to adjustment problems (Feinberg and Hetherington 2001).

Although equal treatment is a worthy goal, achieving it is an ongoing challenge. This is especially true when the differences in the sibling age are large. For example, it is difficult to determine what is equal parental treatment if one child is a teenager and another a preschooler. Stepfamilies and blended families further complicate equal treatment. Extended kin are those more than one generation distant in

blood lines, and may include relations created through marriage, adoption, or other social mechanisms. Most frequently, bonds with extended kin are less strong than those with nuclear family members (parents, children, siblings).

As a consequence, conflicts with extended kin are usually less intense than those with nuclear family members. But when extended kin have religious, legal, economic, or ethical concerns about specific marital or parenting behaviors, the potential for more serious conflict is present. There is great variation in the organization of extended kinship relations across human cultures. There is little sustained research on conflict involving extended kin outside of the United States. Grandparents can disagree with the way their grandchildren are parented (e. g. Cherlin and Furstenberg 1986). This can be a result of generational changes in parenting practices or problematic relationships between parent and grandparent. In-laws often disagree on a variety of marital and parenting issues. This is normal given that a marriage is a merger between two different family systems. These conflicts can become severe if there are also ethnic, cultural, or religious differences involved. U. S. society usually gives the biological parents the right to make major decisions about their children in terms of parenting style, cultural orientation, and religion.

But a high rate of divorce complicates matters in many cases. For example, immediately after divorce, noncustodial parents and grandparents often disagree with the way the children are parented by the biological parent and stepparent. Grandparents may be denied visitation rights. Such circumstances create an ongoing potential for extended family conflict. But the geographical distance that is typical between extended family members, and the U. S. cultural emphasis on the priority of the

nuclear family, mitigates most extended family conflicts.

Psychological problems of divorces

Family conflicts are usually experienced as unpleasant events, unless some resolution occurs. There is often reluctance to talk about personal disputes. But some families can benefit from changing their conflict style. Such change requires open discussions and sustained effort. But it can improve family functioning. When conflict is severe, there may be deeper family issues involved besides conflict style and communication. In such cases, addressing conflict dynamics can be a beginning point in dealing with more complex family problems.

Spouses are often not ready for the problems that were caused by the divorce. This is the problem of building relations between the former husband and wife, as well as relationships with children. Often spouses became enemies after they had divorced. The confrontation between them is preserved for many years, involving in its painful space close relatives, friends, acquaintances and colleagues. They are jealous of each other, trying to hurt their ex-spouse by their behavior, set up the people against himher , seeking to assert themselves, etc.

There are also situations when former spouses after divorce, generally no longer maintain any relationship, as if striking out from his life. And in both cases, people remain with deep psychological trauma, which is not smoothed sometimes during a whole lifetime, even though they create new families or not. Many people after divorce suddenly are faced up to the negative reactions from their social environment. Support and understanding of friends and relatives make it easier to ease the pain after divorce. For many people, divorce is the apparent loss of familiar social relations.

After the initial sympathy and helpful support contact with loved

ones often diminish gradually, the usual order of life changes. In the process of divorce one can lose most of good friends, communication with the former spouse's relatives turns out to be not so easy, relations with the dominant part of the family members become difficult. Those people who at the time of marriage almost did not maintain their own independent relationship with friends, girlfriends, after a divorce may have deep emotional crises. Loss of social relationships leads to loneliness, which can lead to conflicts.

Children are deeply suffering from the parent’s divorce. Typically, the child perceives the situation of the family breakdown so, that one of the parents has left exactly him, but not his fathermother. In some cases, especially in adolescence, the child (boy or girl) tells of their parents’ betrayal, who left the family. Moreover, he begins to perceive the relationship between people as unstable, unreliable, which can always and at any moment collapse. Such feelings do not disappear even when the parents try to save the friendship and friendly relations.

Within a year after the divorce risk of disease from divorced increased by 30% (mostly it is mental and skin diseases, urinary diseases, headaches). Men suffer more painful after divorce than women. Statistics of suicide among men after a divorce is much higher than the female. Most men are more socially-psychologically isolated and vulnerable than women, because they have fewer friends. Some men are despair, when a woman destroys a marriage against their willing. Men, as a rule, object to the divorce because of the opportunity of their children to leave him with their mother.

A man after divorce continues to feel like he

is a father, but he is not always understood in society. Now only 20% of men stop contact with their children after divorce (10 years ago -40%). Conclusions In the given work we have opened a problem of occurrence of the conflict as factor of divorce and way of its overcoming. Statement in the form of supervision of only one psychological phenomenon, the conflict, allows more deeply and in details display its property in sphere of family relations. Having studied the theoretical literature on the given theme, we can make some conclusions.

In Ukraine for today family conflicts are the least studied among all types of social conflicts. It is necessary to note absence of enough amount of works on a problem of family conflicts. In this connection works of foreign authors have been used. In this work we have made a theoretical research of a problem of the conflict. We have also considered the ways of overcoming and resolution of conflicts such as denial, suppression, power, compromise and integration. A key role in family conflict relationships play conjugal conflicts. They arise because of unmet needs of the spouses.

The most contentious are critical periods in the development of the family. Depending on the level of conflict we can highlight the crisis, conflict, problem and neurotic family. Family conflicts have traumatic consequences: a state of complete dissatisfaction with the family, “family anxiety”, mental stress, the state of guilt. Conflicts between parents and children occur because of destructive family relationships deficiencies in family upbringing, age crises of children, individual psychological characteristics of parents and children.

Conflict-free communication for parents with children contributes to improving the pedagogical culture of the

parents, family organization on the principles of collective action, the reinforcement of verbal requirements of the organization of education, parents' interest in the inner world of children.

References

1. Ancupov A. J. , Shipilov A. I. Conflictology: A Textbook for universities. - Moscow: UNITY, 1999
2. Antonov, A. I. Medkov V. M. , Sociology of the Family. - M. 1996
3. Grishina N. V. , Psychology of the conflict, 2008
4. Kanataev Y. A. Psychology of the conflict. - M. : VAHZ, 1992
5. Kharchev AG study of the family: on the verge a new phase / / Sociological Research. 1986,
6. Kovalev S. V. Psychology of the modern family. - M.?? : Prosveshenie, 1988
7. Oleinik A. N. Fundamentals of Conflict Resolution. - M : APO, 1992.
8. Schneider L. B. , Family Psychology, 2006
9. Soloviev, N. V. Marriage and family today - Vilnius, 1977
10. Stolyarenko L. D. Basic Psychology. - Rostov-on-Don. Publishing, Phoenix, 1996
11. Benocraitis, N. (2007). Marriages and families: Changes, Choices and Constraints. Upper saddle River: Prentice Hall
12. Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and Loss, 2nd edition. New York: Basic Books
13. Buehler, C. ; Krishnakumar, A. ; Stone, G. ; Anthony, C. ; Pemberton, S. ; Gerard, J. ; and Barber, B. K. (1998). "Interpersonal Conflict Styles and Youth Problem Behaviors: A Two-Sample Replication Study. " Journal of Marriage and the Family 60:119–132.
14. Christensen, A (1987) Detection of conflict patterns in couples.
15. Clifford Kirkpatrick, The Family: As Process and Institution, 2nd ed. ( New York: Ronald, 1963), pp. 587-589
16. Day, D. ; Gilbert, K. R. ; Settles, B. H. ; and Burr, W. R. (1995). Research and Theory in Family Science. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
17. Deutch M. (1994) Constructive conflict resolution:
    

Principles, Training and Research. Journal of Social issues, 50, 13-32