Multiple Roles at the Table: Teammate, Coach, and Judge
When we picture “typical” negotiations, there’s the table and the offers. When we picture family negotiations, we might imagine a process that involves the full family “sit-down” as you might see on a TV show. In reality, these are a tiny fraction of what negotiations look like in real families. Both the setting and the players are more fluid in negotiations at home.
Imagine your negotiations as a play taking place on a stage. Even if you and your child are (metaphorically) on the stage, front and center, there’s a whole cast and crew behind the curtain with various roles and interests. Or, you may be pulled into scenes that may not have been based on your own agenda. Sometimes your role will be the principal actor, with your spousei sharing their thoughts with you prior to your performance. Other times you will share the stage with your co-parent (or a child) as teammates, and together you will negotiate with someone else. Or, your role may be that of a coach, acting as a director and facilitating what happens with the people on the stage by helping them to communicate better. Finally, you might also play the role of a judge, serving as playwright and having ultimate control over how the ending unfolds by stepping in and making a decision when it seems like others can’t find a solution.
Within the interconnected and long-term relationships we have in families, no matter how this unfolds in the moment, it’s safe to say that few scenes are isolated events with just two players. Regardless of whether they are in the actual discussion at that moment, other people are often involved. What’s more, roles aren’t set in stone, so as situations evolve, your role may also shift and the need for new skills arises.
TEAMMATE: THE TWO-HEADED MONSTER
In a two-parent family, you are always part of a team. A team is defined as multiple individuals who come together to reach a common goal. In families, there are certainly times when the parents feel similarly about what’s happening and what needs to happen and act in a unified and consistent manner. However, no matter how aligned you feel with your co-parent in general, there are also moments when you find yourselves at odds in opinion or approach. Sometimes this is because of actual disagreements about what’s best, and other times it can be because the division of labor isn’t always perfectly clear.
Stories from Home: My nephew told me about a time he had asked his mom to do something and she said “Ask your father,” and then when he asked his dad he was told “Ask your mother.” My nephew was stuck. He figured that either (a) if neither of them was willing to decide, he should just do what he wanted; or (b) he needed to get them in the room together.
Teams introduce new complications. There are increased pressures to conform and agree with our “teammate” to present a united front. Teams require a lot more coordination on when, where, and how the negotiation should take place, which issues can be handled by one person (with the implicit understanding that the other one is on board), and which need to be discussed or approved by all, and how much information needs to be shared and with whom.
Thus, there’s no substitute for spending some time preparing ahead of time; especially in teams, those who prepare more thoroughly perform better. Sometimes this means having one negotiation between team members (say, the parents) before starting the actual negotiation. You can talk through your priorities and your deal-breakers to see where you each feel more flexible about solutions and what your “whys” are.
Interestingly, spouses with greater knowledge of each other’s skills and expertise report being more satisfied in their relationship;1 so, in addition to providing a boost for negotiations with your child, it can reinforce your functioning as a couple to understand each other and your respective roles on the team that you present to your kids. Of course, on the other side, being misaligned with your spouse can make the negotiation that much more difficult because you may now feel like you are engaged in two negotiations simultaneously.
Negotiating as a team offers three distinct advantages: better idea generation, greater perspective, and a chance to have more balance emotionally.
Two Heads Are Better Than One
Although a two-headed monster might not conjure alignment and competence in your mind, a well-coordinated team can be just that. Negotiations with teams tend to have better information sharing, better discussions about what’s really important to people, and ultimately better outcomes for both sides.2 More heads means more ideas on ways to approach and solve a problem. It also means more styles and tactics that may open up the conversation in particular ways. In other words, your toolkit has expanded up to 100%. You and your co-parent communicate differently with your child. This opens up even more ways to approach a situation, which is particularly useful when your message isn’t getting through.
Stories from Home: My husband and I are definitely good at approaching our kids in different ways. For example, he has endless patience for explaining homework issues when they get stuck and frustrated and upset. I’m much better at joking around with them when things get tense.
There’s also power in numbers. It’s very reassuring to have someone else on your side, and it signals seriousness that you and your co-parent have made the time to sit down together with your child to talk about something. Even physically, you’re more of an intimidating force when there are two of you (especially when parents are taller than kids—many studies have documented how height can be equated with dominance and leadership in our minds).3
Limiting Tunnel Vision
Even if you can finish each other’s sentences, you and your co-parent will perceive some situations differently and have varying priorities in others. Rather than being a problem, this can work to your advantage. When we negotiate for something we care about, we can become narrowly focused on the single issue without meaning to. Another person can protect you from your own tunnel vision by presenting a different perspective and help you break out from your original mindset. On the simplest level, this may include new options that you had not thought of on your own.
Stories from Home: On vacation recently, my son really wanted to take a trolley ride back to the hotel after a big restaurant meal. My husband and I wanted to walk back and stretch our legs. My son looked ready to pitch a huge fit on the issue and whine about it, and I saw nothing but a big fight ahead of us where we said “this is the way it is” and he threw a tantrum, but luckily my husband swooped in with a better solution, and one that I didn’t think of myself. He said, why don’t we walk in the opposite direction for a while, and then take an even longer trolley ride back afterward? This worked for everyone, but I didn’t see it myself until he mentioned it.
On a deeper level, because you each have a unique relationship with your child, each parent may also have a different way to talk to your child or insights that perhaps the other wouldn’t easily arrive at. Ultimately, a second person can help you get out of your own way when you get stuck in one position.
Key Point: In a family, team negotiations provide distinct opportunities for both parents and children, including the ability to have more ideas for solutions and to feel more confident. Take advantage of this by consciously seeking and being open to the ideas and strategies of others.
Tagging You In and Out
Much as we don’t mean to, sometimes we lose our cool entirely when dealing with our kids. Kids are born button-pushers, and they need to learn by experience where the line is on how far they can push before we crack. Unfortunately, these moments make rational thought and reasoned negotiations very difficult. Fortunately, it’s rare for two people to both get mad to the same degree at the same moment about the same thing. Having a second person be able to moderate the overall emotional tone in a potentially heated exchange can make the difference between having a reasonable discussion with a chance at an agreement and having a shouting match that could end with more trauma than it started with. This is useful both for getting to a solution, as well as modeling effective ways to handle emotions.4
Stories from Home: My daughter kept using that particular tone of voice that sets me on edge and I kept blowing up at her in response, and then feeling angry with myself for how I was handling these negotiations. I was worried about the lingering impact on our relationship. I knew it kept happening, but I didn’t know what to do. My spouse ended up being really helpful—he stepped in and talked to her when I couldn’t do it anymore, then he let me vent to him instead of yelling at her, and he also made suggestions about what I could do differently when I talked to her based on what worked for him.
Key Point: Use other family members to lend you support and to do the things they’re good at.
SURE, WE’RE ON THE SAME PAGE! (AREN’T WE?)
Two heads aren’t better than one if the two don’t communicate well enough, or if the two-headed monster has heads that talk over each other, yell at each other, or face in different directions. Even if you feel you are on the same page in general, it’s hard to maintain alignment all the time, and sometimes you might be surprised to learn that a teammate may have very different ideas from what you expected. Just like you don’t always know your child’s motivation until you ask, you don’t necessarily know what’s going on with your partner unless you put in the effort to find out.
Teams can also fall down on the job when it comes to integrating the different information, expertise, and perspectives that individuals bring in, which limits solutions. When we think of a successful team, we might think of people discussing a problem, asking each person for ideas and opinions about solutions, considering each, and then reaching consensus on a path forward. In reality, though, people don’t always share new ideas and information. They’re happier to restate and reinforce the things that have already been said by others, rather than introduce new ideas and insights of their own.5
The hardest part of this problem, called the common information effect, is that we don’t know we’re doing it. We don’t consciously edit out our original ideas or hold back our opinions most of the time, but the research on this is clear. People gravitate toward statements of support and agreement. In addition to not wanting to rock the boat, this happens because we unintentionally assume that our spouses and co-workers already share the same perspective and have access to the same information that we do. We fail to see why our opinions or information may be unique to us—that’s our blind spot. So, if we don’t see various ideas or insights as novel in the first place, we’re not as motivated to air those thoughts to others. Making a point to share more of your thinking can help mitigate this problem.
Stories from Home: When my spouse and I were discussing whether to let our daughter go out for ice cream after the school play, we were strongly in favor of letting her go, because this was a group of friends we were encouraging her to spend time with. I assumed that my spouse had already considered the fact that this late night would make tomorrow’s early morning really hard for her, so I didn’t bother to bring this up in the moment. The next day, when it was almost impossible to wake her up for Sunday School, I found out that this extra complication hadn’t factored in at all for him, and I wished I had brought it up.
It’s easier and faster to discuss what we have in common. It takes a lot more explanation and effort to dive into new ideas, but this is where the payoff comes for having the extra head.6 It takes everyone’s individual perspectives to make sure good outcomes are created. So, as important as it is to understand your own “what” and “why,” you also need to communicate them to your spouse and actively seek their thoughts as well. Without this understanding, your two-headed monster will just be a monster.
Being part of a team can also put pressure on you to agree with what other people think, either directly or in subtle ways that we don’t even notice. Research shows that teams become polarized, and believe more firmly in opinions once others have voiced something similar.7 This finding has somewhat surprising implications because while it seems logical that teams should be more moderate in their overall perspective as opinions on both sides would balance each other out, instead teams tend to be more extreme. Hearing other people’s opinions serves to intensify your own feelings, leading to a tendency for teams to make more extreme or definite decisions than one individual might make alone.
Stories from Home: My son, who loves maps, has opinions about which roads we take to get places in the car. Some of the time, I’m willing to say “Sure, we can go your way” because it doesn’t really matter to me, and other times, I’ll insist on a different route. While I’m thinking over which way to go, if my spouse chimes in with support for one decision, it suddenly makes me feel like that was definitely the only right answer. If the comment is, “Why not go his way, it’s fine,” then I’m now sure that this is a good moment for us to be flexible and give our son the chance to make this choice. If instead, it’s, “Oh no, that doesn’t make sense and it’s not up to him,” then I’m suddenly positive that there was no other way to think about it.
Key Point: When you’re discussing and planning for negotiations with a teammate, always ask if there are any thoughts or observations that you haven’t yet discussed or noticed for yourself, and say what’s on your own mind even if it doesn’t seem critical. Be careful not to get “egged on” by the opinions of others.
WHICH ONE ARE YOU, THE STRICT ONE OR THE NICE ONE?
On a team, you have the potential to let different people play different strategic or emotional roles in the negotiation, like having one person be tougher and the other more accommodating, even if only in certain situations.
Stories from Home: My husband and I have an easy time switching roles because different things push our buttons. For me, it’s demands for toys, games, or clothes. For him, it’s things like study habits, paying attention to details, and being more responsible. So it’s not just one of us who’s always tougher.
It’s not always possible, or necessary, to truly plan and stick to a strict assignment of who-does-what within a team negotiation, but sometimes it serves a purpose. We may also (unintentionally) fall into playing certain parts over and over again. Is it always you who takes on the role of task-master while your spouse manages the relationship? Or vice versa? Is one of you more likely to engage in conversation to try to understand the “why” while the other may be more likely to simply decide? If you don’t know the answer to this question, just ask your kids. They understand the roles we take on, as this drives what they can expect from us.
Like most personality-based tendencies, even if you have strong leanings toward one or another approach, you can (and probably should) switch it up sometimes and take another part. The novelty alone of seeing you act differently will surprise your kids into paying more attention to you.
Stories from Home: I’m usually the stricter parent in our house. I’m the one who makes and enforces the rules, the one who has to nag the kids to do things, and the one who gets annoyed by them when they don’t. This leaves my husband free to be the “easy” one. But, when he does get angry at the kids for something, I immediately swing into protective mode and pull them aside and try and help them through the tough moment with their dad. Sometimes I feel disloyal when I side with the kids like this, but then I noticed he does the same thing when I lose it over something. This is a favor that we do for each other—we respect the other person’s frustration while making sure the kids aren’t too upset by it. And, it’s really nice that the kids can see both sides of both of us, instead of one of us always being stern while the other is softer.
Key Point: Get out of the rut of always playing the same role in your negotiations with the kids. Try switching roles to see if it helps move your negotiations forward.
The common name for having one person be stricter while the other is softer is good cop/bad cop. The contrast between the tough and unreasonable person (the bad cop) and the gentler and more accommodating one (the good cop) generally has a big effect. After the bad cop has set the tone, the person is much more likely to open up and concede to the good cop instead to avoid dealing with the bad cop any longer. In other words, when the good cop is nice to you after the bad cop is scary, you’re more likely to do what they want.
Without the good cop/bad cop label, the traditional gender roles of parenting from previous generations is actually a very close parallel to these forces. A mom might have said, “Wait until your father gets home!” when a child misbehaved, signaling that the father, as prime disciplinarian, was the fear-inducing bad cop. The mother was then left free to comfort and protect the children once the situation was over. Today it’s more fluid which parent should do what, and many couples no longer aspire to have each settle into a single role that stays with them, forcing one to be more distant and harsh while the other gets to be closer and more supportive.
This is a change for the better because research has shown that differing parenting styles (having one parent be harsh and the other kind) can be stressful for children. If it happens once in one context, that’s one thing, but if it’s a repeated pattern over time, it can signal that the supportive parent is actually not willing or able to protect the child from the harsher one.10 If a message of toughness needs to be conveyed, a modification of this tactic can be helpful to keep parents aligned and let them present a more united front. This is the bad cop/worse cop version. As the bad cop, one of you can make it clear that you agree with the worse (really strict) cop and thus maintain a cohesive side, but you can also gain good will from being the gentler person.
Key Point: To avoid the good cop/bad cop dynamic entirely opt for the bad cop/worse cop version. This allows you to present a more united front and consistent message to your children when you need to be firm.
Negotiations aren’t always about your own agenda. Sometimes you’re dragged into other family members’ conflicts, either by stepping in during a problem between two children or by helping a child and an adult to understand each other. Even if you really don’t care about the actual final decision (which TV show gets watched or whose game gets played), you may still need to step in and be a part of the resolution when it seems like they can’t figure it out on their own.
Stories from Home: My kids often fight about which video game to play. If they are both being reasonable, we make them split the time and play each game for half of the time. If one of them is being unreasonable, the other one’s choice is the only one they will both play.
This example demonstrates the judge role in action. If your primary goal is solving the problem, you might not care very much how the parties are speaking to each other (or even if they speak to each other), at least not right now. For example, a parent and a teenager who have been continuously screaming at each other might need help just getting past this next disagreement. Of course you want your family members to get along and have good relationships with each other, but that may not be feasible right this minute.
But, in a family, judging can be more than declaring an outcome and pounding your proverbial gavel. It can include trying to work with everyone to make the solution more palatable. This can be helped by presenting the same solution to different people with a different framing or tone. Maybe you would say to your teen something like, “You know your father doesn’t feel safe with you driving around after 10 pm. I bet he’d be much more likely to let you go if you agreed to let us pick you up afterwards.” Alternatively, you might say to your spouse something like, “You know how important this event is for their whole group of friends. As long as we can do the driving, it should be safe to say yes.” In this way, the agreement itself becomes the focus and is presented in ways that frame the solution effectively. The emotional interaction (the yelling, the “it’s not fair,” and the “over my dead body” kind of language) get left out entirely. The management of the (ineffective) communication between the two can be left for another time.
Other times, judging can involve creating new paths to solutions by deciding on the process instead of the outcome.
Stories from Home: Sometimes when her little brother is nagging her to do something or give him something, I will turn to my daughter and say, “Instead of just ignoring him, decide what this thing is worth to you, and make an offer.” There’s almost always something that would change her no to a yes, even if it’s something he wouldn’t want to do in return (like, “pay me $100 to play with you!”).
In theory, we imagine ourselves in these moments as a truly neutral third-party where you’re not more aligned with any one of the other people, as a referee should be in a game, or a Human Resource representative might be in a workplace dispute. Neutrality is a good goal because it gives the distance and detachment needed to hear both parties, brainstorm options, and ultimately decide on a course of action to pursue in a balanced way. However, in a family setting, this isn’t quite realistic.
Parents may never be truly neutral because you have deep relationships and history with everyone else. Maybe your kids feel that you take the other parent’s side more easily, or one parent may feel that the other is always aligned with the child’s point of view. Natural alliances do occur when you spend more time with someone, when you have more similarity with each other on personality or perspective, or when you feel the need to protect someone, and they can shift over time and across issues. Appreciating the alliances that exist can help you move back toward the neutrality that gives the judging role its credibility.
Key Point: Judging allows you to decide on solutions or processes. To work effectively you also need to keep your eye out for which alliances exist in your family (on this issue and at this time).
Coaching helps kids develop their own conflict resolution skill set. It’s helpful when your kids can’t figure something out on their own, or when the same conflict keeps re-occurring and a new perspective is needed. Or it can be a necessary role when conflicts have become too emotional and intractable to move forward without help. Coaches can help generate solutions, encourage people to listen to each other, and help people break out of patterns that aren’t productive. As a coach, you can be more or less directive and float some of your own ideas, but your goal is to pave the way for them to figure it out themselves.
Experienced coaches act like experienced directors of a play in terms of the actual steps they take. They need to first pay attention to setting the scene and ensuring that the actors are comfortable on the stage. Then, they need to consciously craft those important first lines that set the tone and the expectations for the rest of the play. Once these elements are in place, they can turn their attention to helping the script unfold.
Location, Location, Location
You know how you feel when you get called into the boss’s office? Or as a kid, how did you feel if you ever had the experience of sitting in the principal’s office? The potentially intimidating person might rattle us, and the physical space itself can feel foreign and uncertain. Even the reverse (for example, having your boss stop by your office instead) might still feel awkward depending on the relationship you have with each other, because it is generally not common to meet like that and it might feel like an invasion of your space. To counteract these concerns, many meetings take place in neutral territory, such as in a conference room or even over lunch. The space we choose has an impact on how we feel and how the interaction unfolds. Picture a quick meeting in a hallway: The content and the tone of the meeting, as well as its conclusions, may well end up quite different than they would have in a more formal setting. Similarly, even seating arrangements around a table (especially if there’s a “head” of the table) can signal dominance.
At home, identifying a neutral location is going to be far more challenging because all the rooms in your home have meaning, and we need to be aware of how a particular space feels to our children. Kids’ rooms are clearly their space, and as they age, they may be less welcoming about having you settle in there for a talk. Though the main living spaces (kitchen, family room) may feel like more neutral territory to you, in fact, they may feel more like “yours” to your kids since those tend to be the spaces where the parents spend more time and perhaps do more of the caretaking.
Key Point: When you think about sitting down to discuss a situation, do your best to choose a space that feels relatively neutral and comfortable (both physically and psychologically) for everyone.
Opening Statement
As a coach, you’re responsible for the direction of the discussion. It pays to let everyone know what to expect, and to provide a set of ground rules for the interaction. In serious situations, you might want to do something quite formal, such as:
•State the goal: “We’re going to discuss this and get to a solution we’re all happy with.”
•State the process: “You will need to listen to everyone’s ideas and keep an open mind.”
•Establish the ground rules: “Everyone will take turns sharing their suggestions and explaining why they think that’s the right answer, with no interruptions from anyone else.”
This may feel a little formal, and most situations probably don’t need this level of structure. But when necessary, this approach conveys a tremendous amount of control and puts order on what might otherwise be an emotional and chaotic process. This kind of formality can help bring about a much-needed change in tone.
Key Point: Be very clear about what you intend to do and what the ground rules are before beginning a discussion as a coach.
The Main Event
As the coach, the goal of the conversation is to give you a sense of the problem, the specific issues, what each side wants, and hopefully an understanding of everyone’s “why.” Discussions can happen as a whole group where everyone has a chance to present their thoughts, or for sensitive topics, you may want to talk to each person alone first. Professional mediators use both options, and sometimes meet people separately to get them to open up in a more unguarded way. Parents can also choose this divide-and-conquer approach and talk to their child and spouse, or their multiple children, separately instead of immediately sitting them down together. When it comes to addressing the details, it can be a good practice to start with smaller issues where agreement is easier and then progress to more challenging, bigger issues.
Key Point: Coaches help people remain focused on the goal of reaching an agreement, whether that be in one-on-one conversations or as a whole group. They also drive the process to get agreements going, often by starting with smaller issues to gain some goodwill and momentum before tackling the bigger issues.
During the main conversation, a coach can also help defuse situations, clarify language and information, and help people find common ground.11
Defusing focuses on de-escalating unproductive behavior and communication that gets in the way of solving the problem. Sometimes the emotional intensity gets too high and can bleed into antagonism. For example, your teen might have yelled at your spouse “That isn’t fair. You don’t understand. I hate you!” Even though we know these words were only said in the heat of the moment, they can still cause a reaction. A coach can help refocus the conversation on the core issue and keep the emotions in perspective, perhaps by reminding the teen that that kind of language is not acceptable, and reminding the spouse that although it’s strong language, it’s typical for teens to say strong things in the heat of the moment and it wasn’t really their point anyway.
Stories from Home: When my husband and daughter get going in a tough conversation, he doesn’t seem to notice when her tone gets sharper and sharper until she’s shouting at him. He’s so focused on making his own point (and he’s not a yeller in general, so he stays calm most of the time) that he just misses it until it’s extreme! So I step in and tell her that we can’t continue the conversation until it can happen more reasonably.
Finding common ground looks to recognize areas of shared concerns and interests. You can also comment on the fairness of the potential solutions, and can remind the parties of what will happen if they fail to reach any agreement at all. When people dig in to their own position, they forget how much worse off they’d be without an agreement. They can need reminding that making concessions can be better in the end than being stubborn and ending up with nothing. The future relationship between parent and child (or two others) can be used here as a motivator to stay focused on resolving the problem.
Stories from Home: When my son and his friend were struggling over the details on going to a school event together, I said to him, “Remember, you both really want to go together. The logistics aren’t as important as making that happen.”
Finally, clarifying lets you help the process unfold by making sure that everyone understands what’s being said, “translating” for people when they don’t understand each other, and highlighting specific options for moving forward.
Stories from Home: I mediate arguments between my kids all the time. Mostly, I need to help with their communication. There’s a lot of talking going on, but very little listening. I see both of their perspectives, but they really don’t see each other’s. I try to help them understand each other.
COACHING AND JUDGING OVER TIME
Parents of younger children often act as judge because kids may have neither the skill set nor the emotional reserves to resolve conflicts on their own. Conflicts between older children, or between a parent and child, are where coaching can be more helpful. If this fails, stepping in as judge is always still an option.
Stories from Home: Sometimes we’ll start out by trying to explain to our boys that they need to figure out how to get their chores done in the right order to have it go smoothly (like the one in charge of unloading the clean dishes needs to do that early in the day so that the one in charge of loading the new dirty dishes has the space to use). If they don’t get it right, we’ll just insist on a solution.
The role of judge can be habit-forming, though, because it’s often much easier. It can take some conscious thought to remember that deciding for them might not be the best choice anymore as your kids get older. The older they are, the more time they need to try to work things out on their own before you take over.
Key Point: Judging is deciding for people, while coaching is helping to develop a solution together. While there are times when simply making decisions is warranted, over time it’s valuable to move toward coaching instead. Coaching is more involved, but as kids age, it allows them to take more responsibility for finding agreements.
FIVE BIG IDEAS ON YOUR MULTIPLE ROLES IN NEGOTIATIONS (TEAMMATE, JUDGE, AND COACH)
•Having a teammate opens up options. Another person on your side can help bring in new perspectives, can allow you to play different roles, and can help balance out emotional moments. Use this to your advantage when you can.
•Are you the good cop or the bad cop? Be on the lookout for falling into a rut with the roles that you and your spouse play—no one parent should end up being the stricter one all of the time.
•Teammates can forget to communicate. Don’t assume you agree (or disagree) with your teammate. Take the time to understand their interests and priorities—this may help generate more options for resolution and will facilitate greater alignment within your team.
•Coaching is not necessarily about managing relationships. Coaches don’t always have to sit down with everyone at once and try to help them communicate better, though they may sometimes choose to do just this. They can also choose to speak to the two sides alone, one at a time, to focus solely on the actual problem. These are very different approaches and can help in different ways.
•The goal is to help people solve their own problems. Whether you’re a teammate or a coach, your job includes helping to brainstorm possible solutions. Instead of always resorting to being the judge who hands down set solutions, helping people recognize possible paths forward can be even more productive.
NOTES
1. Wegner, D. M., Giuliano, T., & Hertel, P. (1985). Cognitive interdependence in close relationships. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 253–276). New York: Springer–Verlag.
2. Polzer, J. T. (1996). Intergroup negotiations: The effects of negotiating teams. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 40(4), 678–698. doi: 10.1177/0022002796040004008.
3. Blaker, N. M., Rompa, I., Dessing, I. H., Vriend, A. F., Herschberg, C., & van Vugt, M. (2013). The height leadership advantage in men and women: Testing evolutionary psychology predictions about the perceptions of tall leaders. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16(1), 17–27. doi: 10.1177/1368430212437211.
4. Gottman, J.M., & Katz, L.F. (2002). Children’s emotional reactions to stressful parent–child interactions: The link between emotion regulation and vagal tone. Journal of Marriage and Family Review, 34(3/4), 265–283.
5. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003) Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 304–313.
6. Stasser, G., & Stewart, D. (1992). Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 426–434.
7. Stoner, J. A. F. (1968). Risky and cautious shifts in group decisions: The influence of widely held values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 442–459. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(68)90069-3.
8. Inglis–Arkell, E. (2015, January 6). Here’s why the “good cop, bad cop” routine actually works. Io9 blog. https://io9.gizmodo.com/when-scientists-simulate-good-cop-bad-cop-things-get-1677692207.
9. Dolinski D., & Nawrat R. (1998). ‘Fear-then-relief’ procedure for inducing compliance: Beware when the danger is over. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 27–50. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1997.1341; Dolinski, D., Ciszek, M., Godlewski, K., & Zawadzki, M. (2002). Fear-then-relief, mindlessness, and cognitive deficits. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 435–447. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.100.
10. Schofield, T. J., Conger, R. D., Gonzales, J. E., & Merrick, M. T. (2016). Harsh parenting, physical health, and the protective role of positive parent–adolescent relationships. Social Science & Medicine, 157, 18–26. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.03.027.
11. Bennett, M. D., & Hughes, S. (2005). The art of mediation (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: National Institute for Trial Advocacy.
i Note that although both the terms “spouse” and “co-parent” make assumptions about your relationships, we use them interchangeably and to stand in for any adult in your life who has a role in interacting with you and your kids. Some of the ideas in this chapter may not be as readily available to single parents, but some may apply when another adult is present to bounce ideas off of, or to provide perspective on how someone else might choose to handle a situation.