Call us at: (312) 573-8860
1111 N. Wells St. | Ste 400 | Chicago, IL. 60610 | Map

Menu

Resolving Marital Conflict: A Roadmap on How to Fight Fair with Your Spouse


follow url http://go.culinaryinstitute.edu/example-of-research-paper-using-apa-format/ viagra price uk source site viagra gel pour homme pride goes before a fall essay best homework help websites https://home.freshwater.uwm.edu/termpaper/apprenticeship-resume-examples/7/ follow advantages disadvantages of mobile phones essay https://www.mitforumcambridge.org/multiple/it-dissertation-topics/2/ https://preventinjury.pediatrics.iu.edu/highschool/easy-jeje-meaning/14/ https://caberfaepeaks.com/school/write-custom-research-paper/27/ english inspector calls coursework career goal essay for nursing urban legends - academic essays essay on pollution with headings in hindi https://thejeffreyfoundation.org/newsletter/best-college-entrance-essay/17/ follow url how long until viagra is out of your system https://idahohighcountry.org/college/financial-services-resume-writer/30/ prednisone withdrawal headache levitra coatesville industrial mechanic resume sample go to link baumol sales maximization hypothesis enter how to write a closing paragraph for a compare and contrast essay resume oracle business analyst minnesota dr jekyll and mr hyde essay conclusion uq engineering thesisВ source Introduction

Let’s face it, marriage can be hard! When two different personalities decide to intertwine their lives and establish an exclusive union that is expected to last into perpetuity, the potential for friction can be quite high. Case in point, studies have shown that on average, only 31% of marital disputes constitute solvable problems (Gottman, 1994). That means that issues will present themselves, the requisite solutions will be applied, and the problems will never appear again. That then suggests that a startling 69% of marital problems are considered perpetual problems, meaning issues arise, they’re temporarily resolved, and then they reappear again on an ongoing basis (Gottman, 1994). For example, it is an all-too-familiar occurrence for couples to argue because of their differences in orderliness, which is largely due to the contrast in how their personalities are constituted. Because the more orderly spouse may have a higher sensitivity to disorder, he or she may be more inclined to become agitated when an area of the house is in disarray. This spouse may then petition their partner to clean the area that was causing their unrest, only to find that a week later, there’s another area of the house that the less orderly spouse has left unkempt. This familiar scenario is evidence of how personality differences inevitably result in perpetual marital problems. Given that personality differences beset each and every marriage, it is then sensible that couples learn how to engage in tolerable conflict because disputes are bound to occur. In light of this, I will be discussing Gottman’s Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, which are four relational patterns that ought to be avoided to increase the likelihood that one’s marital relationship will withstand the test of time. These horsemen include criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling. Dr. John Gottman, a leading research psychologist in the domain of couple dynamics, first published his research on the four horsemen in 1994. In his investigation, he found that if couples employed the horsemen regularly enough, the probability was quite high that the marriage would end in divorce (Gottman & Levenson, 2002). Within this article for essay structure, I will explain what the four horsemen are and also review their more effective alternatives or antidotes. With this information in mind, you’ll be able to experience greater marital satisfaction and increase the likelihood of your marriage going the distance.

The Research

Decades ago, Gottman set out to determine what relational patterns were characteristic of marital relationships that remained together, and those that fell apart (Gottman, 1994). In order to assess this, he invited droves of newlywed couples to a bed and breakfast-like laboratory setting for a weekend, in which he outfitted the site with video cameras and physiological monitors so that he could examine their relational patterns and physiological responses to one another. Each couple participated in an oral interview in which they reported on their relationship history, they then completed a number of questionnaires and then they were video recorded engaging in neutral conversation, pleasant conversation, and conflictual conversation. The couples were then directed to review the video recordings, rate their emotional responses, and then expert coders categorized their behaviors. After several years had passed, the couples were invited to participate in follow-up interviews in order to discuss the state of their marriage. At the end of the longitudinal study, he dubbed the couples that stayed together and reported marital satisfaction, “Master Relationships,” and those that did not, “Disaster Relationships.” He discovered a number of interesting findings, but one of the most striking ones was that the “Disaster Relationships” regularly used the four horsemen when in the throes of conflict, whereas the “Master Relationships” used them minimally. Furthermore, the latter group was more likely to utilize the antidotes to the four horsemen. Naturally, you’re likely wondering what actions characterize the four horsemen and their antidotes, so without further ado, let’s get to it. 

Criticism vs. Complaining with a Softened Start-Up 

The first horseman is criticism, which is distinguished from the more effective alternative of complaining with a softened start-up. Criticism is characterized by attacking the character or personality of one’s partner and using absolute language such as “always” or “never” when expressing a gripe of some kind. For instance, after a wife asks her husband to take out the trash, and he fails to do so for two days, an example of criticism would be for her to angrily say something like, “Didn’t I ask you to take the trash out two days ago? You never do what I ask you to, and I’m so sick of having to tell you to do things over and over again all the time! It’s either you don’t care or you’re just lazy.” In response to this, the husband would likely become defensive or attack back. Furthermore, in reaction to his wife’s use of absolutes like “always” or “never,” the husband is likely to defend himself by expressing the exceptions to the overgeneralized mischaracterizations. This type of communication often doesn’t end well, and both partners end up hurt. With that being said, let’s take a look at the antidote to criticism. In the aforementioned scenario, an example of complaining with a softened start-up would be characterized by the following: 1) the wife leads with a term of endearment (i.e., sweetie); 2) she uses “I” statements rather than “you” statements; 3) she specifically describes the behavior that upset her, as opposed to her partner’s personality; 4) she articulates her feelings, and then 5) makes a positive request. So, she might say something like, “Hey, sweetie, so a few days ago, I asked you to take out the trash, and maybe it escaped your mind, but I just notice myself getting frustrated because it hasn’t been done yet. Do you mind taking out the trash tonight, please?” If she responds this way, the likelihood is much higher that the husband will happily meet her request. However, all-too-often, this is not how requests or expressions of upset are communicated, which often leads to the next horseman — defensiveness.

Defensiveness vs. Taking Responsibility 

Defensiveness is characterized by self-protective maneuvers that are meant to ward off a perceived attack. It often involves reverse blaming or excusing the behavior of oneself. For example, defensiveness in the aforementioned scenario would entail the husband saying something like, “You always talk about what I don’t do, you never talk about what I am doing for you. Sometimes I forget stuff, okay, but you don’t hear me breathing down your neck when you forget stuff, do you?” This line of conversation likely won’t go well; thus, an alternative is advised. The alternative or antidote to defensiveness is taking personal responsibility. In this case, the husband would be taking responsibility if he said, “You know what, sweetie, you’re absolutely right. I’m sorry, the trash escaped my mind. I’ve had a lot on my mind lately, but that was my mistake. I’m going to take the trash out right now.” This response is likely going to lead to a lot more peace as opposed to war and it’s a lot easier to keep one’s defensiveness in abeyance when one feels as though they’re not being attacked. Most people are not as virtuous as Jesus or Gandhi, so when the majority of people are attacked, the natural response is defense. With this in mind, if you want to decrease the likelihood that your partner will become defensive, you will have to be careful not to attack their personality or character. Instead, it’s key that the complaints that are made are related to specific behaviors. 

Contempt vs. Creating a Culture of Appreciation

The next horseman is contempt. Contempt is described as the act of not only speaking disparagingly to one’s partner but speaking in a way that communicates disrespect. Moreover, it is often characterized by insults or abusive language. The following statement is an example of contempt: “Sometimes I feel like I’m not just raising one child, but two – our son and you! You’re so irresponsible sometimes. Didn’t your mother raise you better?” This horseman has been found to have the most damaging effect on marital relationships, both psychologically and physically. Being the object of contempt has been found to increase the secretion of the stress hormone cortisol, which at high levels can undermine one’s immune system and cause a person to suffer from a greater degree of physical ailments. To avoid this, the antidote that’s advised is creating a culture of appreciation within the relationship. This is where one regularly expresses their gratitude towards their partner for the things that they’re doing well, such as taking out the trash, washing the dishes, cooking a meal, or running an errand. Often, partners do things that the other appreciates, but sometimes the requesting partner keeps their appreciation private and they fail to communicate their gratitude towards their loved one. It’s important to note that the expression of appreciation is not only crucial for the recipient but for the person doing the expressing as well, as it is a reminder to them that their partner is useful and worthy of fondness and thanks.

Stonewalling vs. Physiological Soothing 

The last horseman is what’s called stonewalling. Stonewalling is where one may be in the throes of an argument with their partner, but they’re disengaged and no longer giving the plaintive the cues that they’re listening. They’re not nodding their head, making eye contact, and their disposition is icy-cold. Although the listener may appear cool, calm, and collected on the outside, their internal physiological responses are often heightened. Interestingly, it turns out that if your heartbeat is around 100-beats per minute; your body is in a state called diffuse physiological arousal (DPA). This is when an individual’s body is in a state of threat protection or a mode known as fight-or-flight. When in this mode, the individual’s heart is racing fast, their breathing is shallow, and their adrenaline is pumping. It is challenging to accept influence from one’s partner when one is in a state of DPA, which is why being able to engage in physiological soothing is so important. Physiological soothing requires the listener to regulate their own emotions by breathing deeply from their diaphragm or taking a break for 20-minutes and then returning to the discussion. When taking a break from conflict, it is recommended that such breaks last no less than 20-minutes and no more than 24-hours if things are particularly tense. When both partners are calmer, they are a lot more capable of actively and civilly engaging in the dispute at hand.

Conflict as a Necessity 

As you’re taking stock of the horsemen and their antidotes, you may be worried that your marriage is headed for the dumps because sometimes you notice that you level criticisms at your spouse or become defensive at times, but Gottman discovered a finding that you might find encouraging. The couples that were considered master relationships were not perfect. Gottman and his colleague, Robert Levenson, found that the positive to negative interaction ratio for master relationships was 5 to 1 (Gottman & Levenson, 1999). This means that for every negative interaction, there were five positive interactions. However, the disaster relationships had a positive to negative interaction ratio of roughly 1 to 1, meaning every positive interaction was also coupled with a negative interaction (Gottman & Levenson, 1999). For most couples, the latter interaction pattern eventually becomes too chaotic, and the marriage ultimately dissolves. One might think that the best marital arrangement is one where there isn’t any conflict at all, but this isn’t true. Gottman and Levenson found that in relationships where the positive to negative interaction ratio exceeded 11 to 1, those relationships eventually dissolved too (Gottman & Levenson, 1999). This is likely because the partners in these couples avoided conflict and thus were not honest with one another. Consequently, these findings suggest that some conflict is necessary in order to keep a relationship going.

Verbal vs. Non-verbal Communication 

Up until this point, I’ve mostly discussed the impact that the content of one’s speech can have on a relationship. However, there’s another element to consider when relating to one’s partner and that’s implicit or non-verbal cues. Interestingly, the right hemisphere of your brain is specialized at deciphering implicit cues like the tone of one’s voice (McGilchrist, 2009). Conversely, the left hemisphere is adapted to attune to the content of one’s speech, which is why the brain areas which undergird one’s productive language faculty (Broca’s area) and receptive language ability (Wernicke’s area), are nested in the left hemisphere (McGilchrist, 2009). Put another way, the left hemisphere is more concerned about what someone says, whereas the right hemisphere is scanning the environment for how someone says it. If you find your heartbeat increasing or a rush of adrenaline because someone speaks in an ornery tone, it may not be that you’re overly sensitive, rather your brain is sensing subtle threats in the environment and is thus recruiting your biopsychological resources in order to prepare you for aggressive confrontation or escape. Compared to the left hemisphere, the right one is a lot swifter, which is largely because the right hemisphere is more densely comprised of a greater number of neurons (brain cells), dendritic spires (neuronal extremities that extend from and connect to other neurons) and white matter (fatty sheaths that coat neuronal axons and speed up neuronal transmissions) (McGilchrist, 2009). In other words, the way in which your brain is constructed enables you to have an unsettling feeling a lot quicker than you may be able to articulate it with your speech.  

Closing Remarks

In conclusion, the words that you use in a relationship and how you use them (i.e., tone of voice, facial expressions) will influence how your relationship will fare. No relationship is perfect, but it’s incredibly vital that you make sure that when you’re conversing with your partner, it’s marked by good-will as opposed to antipathy. Peace is always better than war, as life is certainly a lot more pleasant when you’re at peace with your spouse.


References

Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Gottman, J.M. & Levenson, R. W. (1999). What predicts change in marital interaction over time? A study of alternative models. Family Processes Journal, 38 (2), 143-158.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1999.00143.x

Gottman, J.M. & Levenson, R. W. (2002). A two-factor model for predicting when a couple will divorce: Exploratory analysis using 14-year longitudinal data. Family Processes Journal, 41 (1), 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.40102000083.x

McGilchrist, I. (2009). The master and his emissary: The divided brain and the making of the western world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

All my single ladies…Caring for the heart of a woman


In the face of ongoing singleness, it seems women get consumed by the “man hunt”, cope unhealthily a bag of potato chips or Oreos, or harden their hearts from discouragement and self-doubt when they are unable to find what they desire. I have worked with many women who have thought, “What is wrong with me? No one likes me!” or “I must not be good enough for the one I want.” I have true compassion for these women. They long for deep, intimate connection that validates the tender greatness inside of them. This longing for relationship or communion exists for many reasons. On one level, it is an attempt to answer a core defining question, “Am I loveable? Am I captivating? Am I worthwhile?” (Eldredge & Eldredge, 2010).

All humanity is wired for connection and relationship, and women seem to embody this deeply. Genesis shares that Eve was made from the rib of Adam (Genesis 2:22). In Genesis 2:18, Eve was called ezer kenegdo, best translated as, “sustainer beside him” (Alter as cited by Eldredge & Eldredge, 2010). Women are to be life-giving: relational, tender, vulnerable, and beautiful. Therefore, the loneliness and insecurity women often feel during singleness can be intensified when our need for intimacy is not satisfied.

In the book, Captivating, the authors describe the essence of women from a scriptural perspective. The authors argue that women are to be the crown of all creation. Our feminine essence is in our tenderness and beauty. Our vulnerability does not make us weak; it makes us beautiful. Our strength is not in our arm or stature; it is in our tenderness and vulnerability. Too often we look to our fathers and lovers to validate or “complete” us in some way, to help us feel less vulnerable or alone.   We look at the dark, mean world and wonder if we can survive; so, we toughen up, act strong like men, and lose our femininity. (Women are also fierce, but you’ll have to read the book to learn more.) Brené Brown (2012) shares that leaning into vulnerability is courageous. When we are at peace with our vulnerability, the life we breathe into others can be seen and received (Eldredge & Eldredge, 2010).

As women, we are wired for romance as we display the longings and sensitivities of God. He calls the church His beautiful bride (Ephesians 5:26-27) and the books Song of Solomon and Hosea, are metaphorical messages of the sensuality of His romance towards us. Hence, singleness can feel unbearable for women. We feel pressured to marry and have children before 35. We wonder if we’re lovely enough to draw the attention of the right man. The authors argue that men can never satisfy this longing, that our longing and need for affirmation need to come from God instead (Eldredge & Eldredge,2010).

“How do I surrender my needs to the Lord? My feelings are so intense!” you claim.

  1. Do not lose heart in well-doing (Galatians 6:9). Find avenues for restoration. Maybe it’s a daily cup of tea and candle or maybe it is a weekly God-led adventure with the Lord.
  2. Focus on your romance with Jesus. We can draw close to him and feel enraptured by His love and affection. We can maintain our sensitive, tender heart through trials, because we trust the Lord that He is good and faithful towards us.
  3. Embody peace wherever you are. Connect with rest and peace in every moment. Let go of desired outcomes.
  4. Consider counseling if stuck. The process of counseling can help validate and free up intense feelings.

References

Brown, B. (2012). Daring greatly: How the courage to be vulnerable transforms the way we live, love, parent, and lead. New York, NY: Avery.

Eldredge, J. & S. Eldredge, (2010). Captivating: Unveiling the mystery of a woman’s soul. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Holy Bible: New International Version (1984). Zondervan.

Socially Obese? Keep social media use healthy.


In order to maintain health, the most commonly recommended actions are diet and exercise. It is widely known that choosing quality, whole foods over empty calorie, junk foods provide better nutritional intake to support a healthy body. Unfortunately, the American population is “the most in-debt, obese, addicted, and medicated adult cohort in US history” (Brown, 2010, pg. 36). When considering how technology is revolutionizing our world, is it possible, that we have entered an age where we are now, also, socially obese? In other words, are we attempting to satisfy our need for love and belonging with frequent binge episodes of empty activity on social media platforms?

As a Millennial parent of a young child who is intrigued by texting, FaceTiming, and online games, I do my best to limit the use of technology, or at least ensure it is a positive and educational experience. It seems I get to observe her need to belong in this world by her desire for her own phone or app watch because others have them around her. I’m also aware of the glories of life without technology. This compelled me to find the best research on the topic of how technology is changing us.

Humanity has the longest period of childrearing of any species, and therefore, is wired to be social. Attachment theory would argue we feel more secure and confident in whom we are when attached to an attentive caregiver (Bowlby, 1969). Therefore, the technological development of social media to satisfy our need for connection is not unusual. Research has highlighted the positives of social media use. But, what are the bounds of healthy use? Is social media use like binging on junk food and is there a healthier replacement?

There are factors that make social media an easy go-to for social interaction and even addiction. For example, Dr. Susan Weinschenk, who is an expert on user experience in computer systems, outlines how social networking may activate the brain’s reward system on her blog (November 7, 2009). She identified the following factors:

  • Immediate gratification
  • Anticipatory thrill (anticipating reward is more rewarding than receiving the reward)
  • Endless amounts of small bits of information (little information can make us more curious, leading to endless browsing or rabbit trails over hours)
  • Unpredictability of rewards

Based on her research, it appears our brain jumps into an endless dopamine high when engaging social media. Berridge (1998) argues that dopamine is central to seeking pleasure and the opioid system causes us to experience pleasure. Therefore, it makes sense to me that when we browse, post, and game, hours fly by without notice due to the activation of both of these systems.

Unhealthy Social Media Use

There are several studies that clarify at what points social media use loses its benefit. Initially, it is well established that the hormone oxytocin is a bonding hormone, released during delivery of a newborn baby, and at moments of physical or social contact. When a study challenged teens with a stressful task and examined different avenues of receiving emotional support from their parents, oxytocin was implicated. The teens who did not reach out to their parents and those who texted their parents had no noticeable difference in their cortisol or oxytocin levels. The teens who sought support over the phone or face to face, had increased oxytocin and decreased cortisol levels (Seltzer, Prososki, Ziegler, & Pollak, as cited in Greenfield, 2015, p. 130). Therefore, hearing someone’s voice or seeing a person face-to-face was more effective in comforting. It appears that the convenience of technology did not benefit the teens in effectively decreasing stress and increasing bonding.

Moreover, excessive social media use is a concern due to the restricted form of communication that may lack tone of voice, body language, and other avenues of feeling emotionally connected. Those who spend excessive time on screens have more difficulty interpreting facial expressions (Engelberg & Sjöberg as cited in Greenfield, 2015, p. 135). Greenfield’s concern is that technology may encourage autistic-like traits, such as poor eye contact and poor reading of social cues, in an online user (McDowell; Waldman, Nicholson, & Adilov; Hertz-Picciotto & Delwiche; as cited in Greenfield, 2015, p. 136). Other researchers are attempting to clarify any relationship between internet use and lowering levels of empathy. Therefore, excessive use can be a barrier to developing social skills needed to facilitate bonding and attachment in the real world.

Another concern is that social media is replacing real life relationship maintenance. It appears that those who have social anxiety and believe it to be a better platform for self-disclosure are more likely to use social media to build relationships (Oldmeadow, Quinn, & Kowert; Trepte & Reinecke; as cited in Greenfield, 2015, pgs. 102 & 104). The amount of time spent on social media was not linked to having a larger offline network or feeling emotionally closer to offline network (Pollet, Roberts, & Dunbar, 2011 as cited in Greenfield, 2015, pgs. 133). It seems the excessive use of social media may be an act to avoid social anxiety than a tool to overcome it.

Additionally, the use of social media may not benefit self-image. Those with low self-esteem have more frequent posts about negative attributes which seems to lead others to “like” their comments less or reject the online identity altogether (Valkenburg, Peter, & Schouten as cited in Greenfield, 2015, pg. 120). Whereas, in real life, friends may have been able to see their other attributes and consider their negativity more tolerable. Given limited immediate feedback, social media also allows for narcissism to manifest which is linked to low self-esteem (Buffardi & Campbell as cited in Greenfield, 2015, pg. 117). Therefore, those with low self-esteem who rely on social media for connection may create a cycle of rejection and self-inefficacy in online relationships they rely on for intimacy.

Lastly, we advertise our best or “ideal self” on social media or develop a new identity altogether (Zhao, Grasmuck, & Martin as cited in Greenfield, 2015, pg. 117). For that reason, virtual reality continues to reflect less of actual reality. Consequently, we are exposed to the edited or imaginary version of a real person. Besides the scary implications of false identities online, social media provides us with an overwhelming number of personas to compare to ourselves. Therefore, perhaps the implications of our increased reliance on social media to meet our social and emotional needs is more complex than we think and possibly as nutritious as a junk food binge.

Healthy Recommendations

It is a relief to know that research has also identified the benefits of social media. Greenfield (2015) concluded from several studies, that it can be a beneficial avenue for maintaining relationships that were established offline. In order to be resilient from some of the drawbacks of social media use, I recommend that we:

  • Limit the time online to two hours or less each day
  • Develop social skills in offline relationships and work through social anxiety
  • Build face-to-face relationships while using social media to advance those connections
  • Work to limit online comparison, choose self-acceptance, and enhance self-esteem

It is my hope that, similar to other health-conscious trends such as yoga and organic eating, Americans would trend healthy Internet and social media use.


References

Berridge, K. C. & Robinson, T. E. (1998). What is the role of dopamine in reward: hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience? Brain Research Reviews, 28, pp 309–369.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books.

Brown, B. (2010). The gifts of imperfection: Let go of who you think you’re supposed to be and embrace who you are. Center City, MN: Hazelden.

Greenfield, S. (2015). Mind change: How digital technologies are leaving their mark on our brains. New York: Random House.

Weinschenk, S. (November 7, 2009). 100 things you should know about people: #8 Dopamine makes us addicted to seeking information. Retrieved from https://www.blog.theteamw.com/2009/11/07/100-things-you-should-know-about-people-8-dopamine-makes-us-addicted-to-seeking-information/

Knowing When To Seek Help


Some days are good. Really good… Some days are bad. Really bad… The bad days have progressively become more frequent. The hope of good days is beginning to fade.

It was a long day after a long week. Come to think of it, it’s been a long year. My daughter and I curled up in bed watching a movie as we fell asleep. I heard the sound of Adrian’s key turn in lock. My eyes immediately popped open. The door swung open and slammed against the wall. At that moment, I knew Adrian had been drinking. “It’s a bad day,” I thought to myself. The dog jumped and my daughter gripped me in fear. I squeezed her hand in an attempt to comfort her and possibly to reassure myself.

I jumped out of bed in an attempt to sooth Adrian. Not sure what to expect, I carefully walked on eggshells so as to not set Adrian off into a rage of anger. Nevertheless, verbal daggers in the form of criticism and put-downs were quickly thrown toward me violently striking me in the heart. I frantically attempted to nurture and reason with Adrian. I desperately wanted to prevent the explosion I knew was coming. With one sweep of Adrian’s arm, my late grandfather’s heirloom shattered into a million pieces on the dinning room floor. I felt angry, sad, and scared. Adrian walked away with no regard for what he had done. I quickly and silently gathered some items and left with my daughter and the dog.

The next morning, I woke up to several texts messages and voice messages from Adrian pleading with me to come back, promising me that the drinking is over for good and making commitments to get help and seek counseling to gain control over the anger. I thought to myself, “Today will be a good day. Maybe Adrian will finally follow through. Maybe we can finally escape this horribly destructive pattern.” My second thought was, “Adrian has promised all of this before. What will make this time different? We have gone through this pattern countless times before.”

My final thoughts were, “I do not want this life for my daughter, for myself, nor for Adrian. This time, I will change the pattern. This time I will seek support for myself.”

  • This story is fictional and created with the intent to illustrate an abusive relational pattern as to increase awareness, offer knowledge and provide support for those who may be engaging in an abusive relational pattern.

 

cycle of violence

Image Retrieved from www.ccfamilycrisis.org

According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (2015), “Domestic violence is prevalent in every community and affects all people regardless of age, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, or nationality. Physical violence is often accompanied by emotionally abusive and controlling behavior as part of a much larger, systematic pattern of dominance and control. Domestic violence can result in physical injury, psychological trauma, and even death. The devastating consequences of domestic violence can cross generations and last a lifetime.”

Obtain further information at www.NCADV.org

The Lord is close to the brokenhearted; he rescues those whose spirits are crushed. – Psalm 34:18

If the above depicted relational pattern is one that you find to be familiar, please seek help. Your life is worth it.

Call The National Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-SAFE (7233)

Or, online go to www.Domesticshelters.org

 

DCADV. (2015). Domestic violence national statistics. Retrieved from www.ncadv.org

Holy Bible. New Living Translation copyright© 1996, 2004, 2007, 2013 by Tyndale House Foundation.

Cornerstone Counseling Center of Chicago