With the rise of social technology and the need to create new relationships, it becomes easier for adolescents to obtain and maintain relationships with anyone. An obvious caveat, however, is that with the demographic being exposed to all kinds of people and backgrounds, it is possible to unwittingly or unwillingly obtain a relationship with “toxic” individuals -- individuals who negatively affect the mental and social health of others. But regardless of this caveat, society still places a high amount of pressure on adolescents to “make as many friends as possible” and “put themselves out there”, almost to a fault. Very rarely do we find any intuitive discussion of the possible negative aspects in doing so, or preventative measures in regards to ill-formed relationships.

Because adolescents, especially those under a legal consenting age, are considered a vulnerable demographic there is extreme worth in studying this topic. Examining this phenomenon through the use of qualitative methods--and understanding participants’ personal experiences on what kinds of verbal and nonverbal discourse creates a toxic relationship--can definitely curtail stunted growth in the social development of young people for generations to come.

A significant amount of literature exists in regards to toxicity and abuse in adolescent relationships. As it stands, however, all of the current literature focuses more on the "victim versus aggressor" trope in said relationship, and any related psychological traits or responses. The research, then, does very little to explain the motives behind any of the behaviors, if at all. Because abusive relationships at a young age are as detrimental as they are on the rise, it is crucial to understand them from an objective and communicative standpoint. Rather than continuing to build the “violent aggressor versus helpless victim” trope, we must instead acknowledge the power imbalances between people in a relationship, and instead examine the types of verbal and nonverbal behaviors that ensue. Having a well-formed understanding of the communication styles in such relationships will definitely serve as an educational tool for youth attempting to build healthy relationships during their developing years.

Dyadic Power Theory and Toxic Relationships

Researchers acknowledge that within any relationship, there is potentially some sort of power imbalance. This is defined as an inequality in power between dyads or triads--in this case, a dyad, or two people in a relationship. Inequality is especially evident in abusive or toxic relationships between close child and adolescent friends, as well as adolescent romantic relationships. These imbalances are caused by one or both parties within the dyad expressing (either verbally or nonverbally) a sense of anxiety, jealousy, or low self esteem, and thus, feel the need to either assert their dominance over the “weaker” party to assuage any concerns, or become forcibly submissive to the “dominant” party to regain a sense of control and reassurance. Consequently, unresolved conflicts, miscommunication, dishonesty, and at least one party suffering emotionally and/or physically at the hands of the other party become the standard. Power imbalances also create an impending sense of doom for the “weaker party” -- that is, the “weaker” counterpart feels that they are unable to leave the relationship, because it offers them something they believe they cannot find outside the dyad: companionship, security, affection, etc. This insecurity is often what the “dominant” party--who may also have a strong need for the above specified traits--depends on to maintain a strong connection to the weaker party, thus resulting in the verbal and nonverbal cues to be discussed.

Verbal Communication in Toxic Relationships

Any verbal cues in toxic relationships largely come from the “dominant” end of the relationship. These cues maintain the relationship by playing on the fears and suspicions of the “weaker” party. One significant example included the “dominant” party using a “dismissive” rhetoric--suggesting that the “weaker” party is insignificant to the dominant party and therefore can be dismissed--by verbally threatening to end their relationship or suggest that they are a “savior” of sorts to the weaker party, and the only person who can tolerate or care for them. Similarly, they also used tactics such as taunting and teasing their weaker counterpart, being deceitful, and verbally expressing their jealousy and anger--usually stemming from anxiety--to assert dominance and thus strengthen the connection established.

Of course, this dominance cannot be asserted without the “weaker” counterpart establishing some form of submission. Though much of the verbal communication comes from the dominant partner, the weaker counterpart will still verbally share their feelings of anxiety and inadequacy to their partner, even if it proves counterproductive or even harmful. Ultimately, these fears contribute to the general power imbalance that exists within the relationship.

Nonverbal Communication in Toxic Relationships

The more obvious forms of nonverbal communication in toxic relationships include the physical, violent cues we associate with abuse, such as assault. Interestingly, a theme of dismissiveness also exists within the nonverbal. This is portrayed as actively ignoring the “weaker” individual for various reasons, pretending the weaker party doesn’t physically exist, or even pretending to not be acquainted with the weaker party (i.e., “I don’t know who they are.”). Physical, violent contact has already proven extremely potent in psychologically and communicatively destroying the affected. Moreover, the use of “dismissive” nonverbal cues further intensifies feelings of inadequacy in the weaker party, in addition to “confirming” any ideas of self-deprecation. We understand, then, that the “stronger” party reaffirms their position by having the most control of communication in toxic relationships, because they are able to dominate and effectively (albeit negatively) use both verbal and nonverbal cues to attain their goal.

The “weaker” party in a toxic relationship utilizes nonverbal cues through submission and avoidance. Because addressing conflict often leads to miscommunication and therefore more conflict within their relationship, they generally will let their dominant counterpart exist without interference. There is an overwhelming fear that plays upon their decisions regarding to the relationship, such as the fear of angering their partner, or the fear of having a partner leave them. They experience anxiety and concern, much like their dominant counterpart, but traits like low self-esteem or potential depressed affect contribute greatly to how they act within the relationship. These cues obviously cannot combat those supplied by their dominant partner, thus further establishing the power imbalance.

A major gap present within all literature reviewed was the heavy focus on the “weaker” party as the victim from the “dominant” aggressor. As mentioned before, this creates a very narrow focus in regards to the types of communication that exist on both ends. The articles leave the impression that the “weaker” party does not do anything at all to combat the “dominant” force or establish equilibrium in power between the two parties, which is quite unrealistic of any relationship, toxic or not. Furthermore, it isolates the “dominant” party as a highly aggressive, “evil” character that is impossible, if not undesirable, to identify with.

While the "victim versus aggressor” trope does well to solidify the idea that toxicity and abuse in relationships are to be avoided, it is counterproductive in that it becomes virtually impossible for potential “dominant” individuals to realistically look at faulty traits and methods of communication they might employ in a relationship. Similarly, “weaker” counterparts understand that being “weak” means being a “victim”, and therefore should express no concern if they do not feel “victimized” by the types of communication that exist within their relationship.

The research presented further contributed to the trope by using quantitative research -- mostly surveying participants on their experiences with abuse in relationships. These surveys did use a method of self-report, however, the items within surveys suggestively supported the trope, provided “built-in” forms of communication, and thus did not lend much information when it came to the various other types of communication possibly utilized in these relationships.

By establishing the fact that verbal and nonverbal toxic communication is not always intentional and overt, the research is able to generate a discussion on what other types of communication might be considered toxic in a relationship, as well as encourage young people to look at their own relationships and potentially identify negative aspects, in order to gain valuable and necessary experience in relationship building for the future.

References

Brendgen et al. (2015). The dark side of friends: a genetically informed study of victimization within early adolescents’ friendships. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44(3), 417-431. doi:10.1080/15374416.2013.873984

Denzin, N. (2011). The qualitative manifesto: A call to arms. Walnut Creek, Calif.: Left Coast Press.

Dey, I. (1995). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry. San Diego: Academic Press.

Dunbar, N., & Johnson, A. A test of dyadic power theory: Control attempts recalled from interpersonal interactions with romantic partners, family members, and friends. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 4(1), 42-62. doi:10.1075/jaic.4.1.03dun

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub.

Knudson-Martin, C., Huenergardt, D., Lafontant, K., Bishop, L., Schaepper, J., & Wells, M. (2014). Competencies for addressing gender and power in couple therapy: A socioemotional approach. J Marital Fam Ther Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 41(2), 205-220. doi:10.1111/jmft.12068

Seiffge-Krenke, I., & Burk, W. J. (2015). The dark side of romantic relationships: Aggression in adolescent couples and links to attachment. Mental Health and Prevention. doi:10.1016/j.mhp.2015.05.004

Zhang, W., Zou, H., Wang, M., & Finy, M. S. (2015). The role of the Dark Triad traits and two constructs of emotional intelligence on loneliness in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 75; 74-79. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.025