Interpersonal Conflict 10th - PDF Ebook

Interpersonal

Conflict
Tenth Edition
Interpersonal
Conflict Tenth Edition

Joyce L. Hocker

William W. Wilmot
INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT, TENTH EDITION
Published by McGraw-Hill Education, 2 Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10121. Copyright © 2018 by McGraw-Hill
Education. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Previous editions © 2014, 2011, and
2007. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a
database or retrieval system, without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education, including, but not
limited to, in any network or other electronic storage or transmission, or broadcast for distance learning.
Some ancillaries, including electronic and print components, may not be available to customers outside the
United States.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LCR 21 20 19 18 17
ISBN 978-0-07-352394-1
MHID 0-07-352394-1
Brand Manager: Jamie Laferrera

Product Developers: Erika Lo
Marketing Manager: Meredith Leo
Content Project Managers: Ryan Warczynski, Samantha Donisi-Hamm, Sandra Schnee
Senior Buyer: Laura Fuller
Design: Studio Montage, St. Louis, MO
Content Licensing Specialists: Lori Slattery
Cover Image: © Lisa Stokes/Getty Images
Compositor: SPi Global
Printer: LSC Communications
All credits appearing on page or at the end of the book are considered to be an extension of the copyright page.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Hocker, Joyce L., author. | Wilmot, William W., author.

Title: Interpersonal conflict / Joyce L. Hocker, William W. Wilmot.
Description: Tenth edition. | New York, NY : McGraw-Hill Education, [2017]
Identifiers: LCCN 2017007884 | ISBN 9780073523941 (alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Interpersonal conflict. | Conflict (Psychology)
Classification: LCC HM1121 .W56 2017 | DDC 303.6/9—dc23 LC record available
at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017007884
The Internet addresses listed in the text were accurate at the time of publication. The inclusion of a website does
not indicate an endorsement by the authors or McGraw-Hill Education, and McGraw-Hill Education does not
guarantee the accuracy of the information presented at these sites.
mheducation.com/highered
With great appreciation
for the life and scholarship
of
William W. Wilmot
1943–2013
Brief Contents
Preface xv
Acknowledgments xvii
Part ONE Conflict Components 1
Chapter 1 The Nature of Conflict 2
Chapter 2 Perspectives on Conflict 38
Chapter 3 Interests and Goals 76
Chapter 4 Power: The Structure of Conflict 109
Chapter 5 Conflict Styles 152
Chapter 6 Emotions in Conflict 195
Part TWO Special Applications 229
Chapter 7 Analyzing Conflicts 230
Chapter 8 Interpersonal Negotiation 257
Chapter 9 Third-Party Intervention 289
Chapter 10 The Practice of Forgiveness and

Reconciliation 317
References 362
Name Index 383
Subject Index 389
Contents
Preface xv
Acknowledgments xvii
Part ONE Conflict Components 1

Interpersonal Conflict Depends on Interpersonal Communication . 2
Conflict Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
An Expressed Struggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Interdependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Perceived Incompatible Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Perceived Scarce Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Interference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Why Study Conflict? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Family Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Love Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
The Workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
The Importance of Skill Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Preventing Destructive Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Understanding Destructive Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
The Four Horsemen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
More Examples of Destructive Habits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Escalatory Spirals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Avoidance Spirals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Your Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Your Personal History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
More Reflections on Your Specific History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Your Worldview Affects How You Think and Feel
About Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Negative Views of Conflict. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Positive Views of Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Insights from Metaphors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Metaphors Reflecting Danger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Listen and Learn from Metaphors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Narratives Frame Conflict. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
x Contents
How Do You Perceive Specific Conflict? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Don’t Believe What You See—At First . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Identify Your Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Gender Biases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Cultural Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Types of Goals: TRIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Topic Goals: What Do We Want? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Relational Goals: Who Are We to Each Other? . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Identity, or Face-Saving, Goals: Who Am I in This Interaction? 84
Process Goals: What Communication Process Will Be Used? 89
The Overlapping Nature of TRIP Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Goals Change in Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Prospective Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Transactive Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Retrospective Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Goal Clarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Clarify Your Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Estimate the Other’s Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Collaborative Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Power Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Personal Orientations to Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Power Denial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
A Relational Theory of Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Bases of Power. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Resource Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Interpersonal Linkages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Communication Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Power in Distressed Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Assessing Your Relational Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Contents xi
Balancing Power Constructively. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

High Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Low Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Metacommunication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

The Nature of Styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Assessing Your Styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Will You Avoid or Engage? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Avoidance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Avoidance and Culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
The Avoid/Criticize Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Avoidant Communication Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Dominating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Destructive Domination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Verbal Aggressiveness and Verbal Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Compromise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Obliging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Integrating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Cautions about Styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Beyond Styles: Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Patterns of Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Explanations for Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Interaction Dynamics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Flexibility Creates Constructive Conflict. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Being Stuck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Are You Stuck? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Introducing Emotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
You Can’t Ignore Emotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Misconceptions of Emotion in Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
How Does Emotion Function in Conflict?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
xii Contents
A Model of Emotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Core Concerns: Organizing Positive Emotions . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Finding Feelings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Functions of Negative Emotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
Shame, Guilt, and Regret . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Functions of Positive Emotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
The Mid-Range: Zone of Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Mindfulness: Thinking About Feelings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Personal Responsibility for Emotional Transformation . . . . . . . . 225
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Part TWO Special Applications 229

Macro-Level Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Systems Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Complex Conflict Patterns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Micro-level analysis of Conflict Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Interaction Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Microevents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Comprehensive Guides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Conflict Assessment Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Difficult Conversations Guide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

Negotiation in Everyday Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Negotiation and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
Constructive Argumentation: Test Ideas, Not People . . . . . . . . . . 262
Approaches to Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
Competitive Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Communication Patterns in Competitive Negotiation . . . . . . 267
Disadvantages of Competitive Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Integrative Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
Contents xiii
Seven Elements of Principled Negotiation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

What Makes Implementing the Core Concerns So Difficult?. 275
Balancing Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
Concern for the Relationship: Self and Other . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
Coaching for Integrative Negotiators: Putting It into Practice . 277
Disadvantages of Integrative Bargaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
The Language of Integration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
Competitive and Integrative Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

The Need for Third Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Advantages of Using Skilled Third Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
Informal Help. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Conditions for Helping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Cautions about Informal Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
Formal Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
The Intervention Continuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
When the Parties Decide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
When an Outsider Decides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
Chapter 10 The Practice of Forgiveness

and Reconciliation 317
Forgiveness and Reconciliation in the Context of Interpersonal
Conflict. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
Some Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
What’s to Forgive?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
Some Misconceptions about Forgiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
When There Is an Imbalance of Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
The Matter of Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Decision or Process? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
How Process May Lead to Decision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
Getting Stuck: Eddies in the River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
The Personal and Interpersonal Dimensions of Forgiveness . . . . 336
Implied Forgiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
Gestures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
Communicating Forgiveness Directly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
The Value and Limits of Apology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
xiv Contents
Final Thoughts on Apology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

Switching the Point of View: Receiving Forgiveness
and Forgiving Oneself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346
Reconciliation: A Late Stage in the Journey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
Insights from History, Politics, and Literature. . . . . . . . . . . . 349
The Strand of Truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
The Strand of Forbearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
The Strand of Empathy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
Commitment to the Relationship out of Awareness
of Our Interdependence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .353
The Tie That Binds: A Multicultural Example from Hawaii . . . . 355
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
References 362
Name Index 383
Subject Index 389
Contents xv
Preface
Revising this, the tenth of edition of Interpersonal Conflict, brought me the opportunity to
reflect on how the field has changed since I first began to research the field for my disserta-
tion at the University of Texas in 1973. Since our first edition in 1978, conflict resolution
has transformed into many subfields: peacemaking, third-party intervention, prevention of
conflict, and the integration of personal transformation with interpersonal communication
choices. This edition reflects many of the recent changes in the field.
All chapters reflect recent research on interpersonal conflict. As has been our practice,
I have removed earlier citations that are so foundational that they need not be specifically
cited. All chapters have been revised and in some cases, reorganized and rewritten for read-
ability and clarity. New additions of “How would this sound?” give examples of dialogue
the students may use to enlarge their conflict communication. Clearer organization and
subheadings guide the reader through the text. The book still contains the 10 chapters in
the same order.
Chapter One, “The Nature of Conflict,” retains the resilient definition of conflict that
has gained acceptance and use for more than three decades. This definition is now where
it belongs, at the beginning of the chapter. Added emphasis on transforming the elements
of conflict, with a special focus on perception, reflects the trend in the wider field to view
elements as capable of transformation. The chapter includes activities on intrapersonal
conflict, introducing the student to self-reflection as a basic first step. Examples and cases
referring to same-sex relationships are added throughout. The chapter presents a persua-
sive case for studying conflict.
Chapter Two, “Perspectives on Conflict,” retains the popular section on worldviews
that influence one’s approach to conflict. The metaphors of conflict section retains the
simplified approach, organizing metaphors around danger and opportunity, used in the last
edition. A new section on how narratives frame conflict has been added, with an extensive
case study that illustrates the approach. The previous “lens view” of conflict has been
removed, since it was redundant with new material on perception.
Chapter Three, “Interests and Goals,” retains the popular teaching tool of the TRIP
acronym (Topic, Relationship, Identity, and Process goals), which helps students analyze
layers of any conflict. Several cases are extended to further exemplify the changing nature
of goals.
Chapter Four, “Power: The Structure of Conflict,” is extensively reorganized, rewrit-
ten, and clarified. All sections relating to high and low power and how to deal with imbal-
ances have been reorganized. Many older citations are removed. A new definition of
interpersonal power is presented, which focuses on influence. The shifting nature of power
is emphasized (power depends on changing relationship dynamics). The power bases sec-
tion has been updated. Some cases have been expanded and made more challenging. The
section on bullying, including cyberbullying, has been revised and expanded. A new class-
room activity on bullying and sexual assault has been added.
Chapter Five, “Conflict Styles,” retains the popular Rahim styles assessment, with
needed corrections in scoring, thus making the section accurate and useful. The section on
verbal aggressiveness and verbal abuse is expanded, and placed in the “dominating” section.
Integrating or collaborating is presented as the default style of choice, toward which the
xvi Preface
teaching in this book is oriented. Violence is presented not as a kind of style, but as an
approach that always leads to negative outcomes (along with bullying and verbal violence).
References to violence scales are included in this edition.
Chapter Six, “Emotions in Conflict,” benefits greatly from a surge of research
and writing about the place of emotion in conflict resolution. New class activities that
will guide students in the analysis of their emotional life have been added. While most
researchers agree that no emotion is, in and of itself, positive or negative, the research
literature continues to designate emotions in this way; the chapter reflects language in
the research. A new “feeling words” inventory, simpler and more applied to conflict reso-
lution, has been added. Humiliation is added as a separate, powerful emotion, tied to
the experience of bullying. Material on how emotions transform as the conflict becomes
more integrative is added. Mindfulness is presented as a necessary part of the transforma-
tion of conflict.
Chapter Seven, “Analyzing Conflicts,” has been reorganized into macro-level analy-
sis and micro-level analysis, which simplifies the approaches. The Comprehensive Guide,
which assists students in writing a major conflict analysis paper, is updated to reflect
changes in the book.
Chapter Eight, “Interpersonal Negotiation,” includes new research on gender, culture,
and negotiation. While all the approaches to negotiation covered before are still covered,
the perspective of the chapter now clearly guides students toward integrative negotiation
in most situations. Integrative negotiation uses all the communication theory upon which
most of the book rests.
Chapter Nine, “Third-Party Intervention,” presents current writing on communica-
tion coaching in an expanded manner. Coaching is presented as a part of many different
kinds of third-party intervention, ideally suited for the student of communication. Updates
on gender and third-party intervention have been added. The approaches to third-party
intervention are presented as they actually occur in the workplace—dynamic and changing
forms of interpersonal conflict resolution.
Chapter Ten, “Forgiveness and Reconciliation,” written by Gary Hawk at the authors’
request five editions back, is updated with new, current cases dealing with sexual violence,
trauma, social media, and racial bias. Gary has added a section on cautions when there
is an imbalance of power. He has rewritten and retained the popular section on apology,
pointing the reader toward examples of excellent apologies.
I welcome your comments, both from students and adopters of this book. Your
responses help guide my choices for the future. I will respond to every comment. You may
reach me at [email protected] or [email protected]. Best wishes as you begin
or continue the journey of discovery about interpersonal conflict and the promotion of
peaceful relationships.
Joyce L. Hocker,
Fall, 2016
Missoula, Montana
Preface xvii
Acknowledgments
To the reader from Joyce Hocker
What a privilege to be working on this tenth edition of a project I began in the early seven-
ties. These days, in semi-retirement, I teach peace and conflict resolution in the Lifelong
Learning Institute at the University of Montana, and at the Red Willow Learning Center, a
nonprofit devoted to serving the needs of trauma survivors and those who serve these cli-
ents. I continue to find a sense of purpose as we work together for greater skill in creating
peaceful relationships.
The tenth edition is the first revision without my longtime colleague Bill Wilmot, who
died in the summer of 2013. His work pervades this book; I missed his wit and perspective
as I revised the chapters. I appreciate all his contributions to this project over the years.
My husband, Gary Hawk, not only revised his excellent chapter on forgiveness and
reconciliation, but he also supported me through the summer as I worked in our home
each day. He helped me move into a large, lovely study affording a view of whitetail
deer, birds, Ponderosa pines, mountain ash trees, and the peaceful rock garden he main-
tains in our backyard. He warmly encouraged me through the whole process. Our cat,
Lonestar, maintained his practice of walking on the keyboard and letting me know when
it was time to pay attention to him. Keegan Olson, a graduate student in Communication
Studies at the University of Montana, served as my research assistant. He found just the
right research updates for each chapter. I outlined what I hoped to find each week, and
he perceived accurately what would be helpful and sent the citations to me. Additionally,
Keegan tutored me in the online library system, organized the references, and made every-
thing look easy. In addition to his technical expertise, Keegan shared a keen enthusiasm
for the ideas he found, sharing his own perspectives with me. I could not have asked for a
finer research assistant.
Just before this revision, I studied memoir writing with friends Sally Thompson,
Cyndy Aten, and Gladys Considine. Novelist Richard Fifield, our teacher, helped sharpen
our writing skills. I hope some of his expertise shows up in rewritten sections of this book.
Sally Thompson kept track of my progress and shared her wise perspective on aspects of
this revision.
Lillian Davis encouraged me during the time we were doctoral students at the Univer-
sity of Texas. She continues to be my dear friend, taking interest in this project. She and I
are the only continuing witnesses of my early effort. In many ways, she is responsible for
the inception of the conflict resolution project in my early years. I am deeply grateful to her.
My family members, the late Janice Hocker Rushing, my sister, and Jean Lightfoot
Hocker and Lamar Hocker, our parents, continue to live in memory. Our parents taught us
equality, fairness, and justice in a loving family environment where our individuality was
welcomed. My brother Ed and I carry on their values and live with their love for us. I am
grateful to Ed for encouraging me in this and my other writing projects. Anne de Vore,
Jungian analyst and life guide, continues to enrich my life with her wisdom and counsel.
I am humbled to have worked with clients in my practice for decades now; they and all
my former students have truly taught me the meaning of all these practices of interpersonal
peacemaking.
May we learn to live in peace.
xviii Preface
To the reader from Gary Hawk

As we complete this tenth edition I feel deeply grateful for 18 years of students in The
Davidson Honors College, the way they trusted me with their stories, demonstrated resil-
ience in the face of adversity, and showed kindness toward one another in the circle of our
mutual instruction. Also, I remain truly grateful that Joyce Hocker gave me an opportu-
nity to harvest my experience in the field of forgiveness and reconciliation and allowed
me to express my own discoveries and the insights of others in a language that makes
sense to me.
Supplements
The tenth edition of Interpersonal Conflict is now available online with Connect, McGraw-
Hill Education’s integrated assignment and assessment platform. Connect also offers
SmartBook for the new edition, which is the first adaptive reading experience proven to
improve grades and help students study more effectively. All of the title’s website and
ancillary content is also available through Connect, including:
∙ An Instructor’s Manual for each chapter.
∙ A full Test Bank of multiple-choice questions that test students on central concepts
and ideas in each chapter.
Required=Results
©Getty Images/iStockphoto
McGraw-Hill Connect®
Learn Without Limits
Connect is a teaching and learning platform
that is proven to deliver better results for
students and instructors.
Connect empowers students by continually
adapting to deliver precisely what they
need, when they need it, and how they need
it, so your class time is more engaging and
effective.
73% of instructors who use

Connect require it; instructor
satisfaction increases by 28% when Using Connect improves retention rates
by 19.8%, passing rates by
Connect is required.
12.7%, and exam scores by 9.1%.
Analytics
Connect Insight®
Connect Insight is Connect’s new one-
of-a-kind visual analytics dashboard that
provides at-a-glance information regarding
student performance, which is immediately
actionable. By presenting assignment,
assessment, and topical performance results
together with a time metric that is easily
visible for aggregate or individual results,
Connect Insight gives the user the ability to
take a just-in-time approach to teaching and
learning, which was never before available.
Connect Insight presents data that helps Students can view their results
instructors improve class performance in a for any Connect course.
way that is efficient and effective.
Mobile
Connect’s new, intuitive mobile interface gives students
and instructors flexible and convenient, anytime–anywhere
access to all components of the Connect platform.
Adaptive
THE ADAPTIVE
READING EXPERIENCE
DESIGNED TO TRANSFORM
THE WAY STUDENTS READ
©Getty Images/iStockphoto
More students earn A’s and

B’s when they use McGraw-Hill
Education Adaptive products.
SmartBook®
Proven to help students improve grades and
study more efficiently, SmartBook contains the
same content within the print book, but actively
tailors that content to the needs of the individual.
SmartBook’s adaptive technology provides precise,
personalized instruction on what the student
should do next, guiding the student to master
and remember key concepts, targeting gaps in
knowledge and offering customized feedback,
and driving the student toward comprehension
and retention of the subject matter. Available on
tablets, SmartBook puts learning at the student’s
fingertips—anywhere, anytime.
Over 8 billion questions have been

answered, making McGraw-Hill
Education products more intelligent,
reliable, and precise.
www.mheducation.com
Part One
Conflict
Components
Chapter 1
The Nature of Conflict
Interpersonal Conflict Depends on Interpersonal

Communication
Welcome to the study of communication during conflict. Communication is the medium
for conflict management, whether face-to-face, written, or with technology. When we
transform communication itself, we begin to engage the process of conflict resolution.
Constructive communication shifts potentially destructive conflict into an arena of resolu-
tion (Fisher-Yoshida 2014).
Conflict participants communicate in an effort to generate shared meaning, solve
problems, and preserve the relationship to accomplish shared goals. Effective communica-
tion in conflict management propels the twists or shifts in the direction of a conflict best
described as transformations, or “aha” moments (Putnam 2010). In this book we focus on
communication that is primarily:
∙ Face-to-face most of the time
∙ With people you know or who are important to you
∙ Complicated and difficult. If it were not so, you would not be in conflict.
∙ Shaped by the context in which the conflict takes place—romantic, family, work, or friends
∙ Oriented toward constructing and sharing meaning
∙ Goal directed
As you proceed throughout the book and class exercises, you will be challenged to
alter your cherished habits of doing conflict. The goal is to teach you to become a more
effective communicator in future conflict situations. Conflict is a fact of human life. It
occurs naturally in all kinds of settings. Nations still struggle, families fracture in destruc-
tive conflicts, marriages face challenges and often fail, and the workplace is plagued with
stress, bullying, avoidance of real communication, and blaming.
Conflict Defined
Perception is at the core of all conflict analysis. In interpersonal conflicts, people react as
though there are genuinely different goals, there is not enough of some resource, and the
other person actually is getting in the way of something prized by the perceiver. Sometimes
these conditions are believed to be true, but sorting out what is perceived and what is inter-
personally accurate forms the basis of conflict analysis.
Careful attention to the elements that make up conflict will help you understand an
apparently unresolvable conflict. When conflicts remain muddled and unclear, they cannot
be resolved. When you first perceive that you are in conflict with others, you may want to
immediately get them to change. Usually, that initial attempt fails. You may feel hopeless.
Instead, you will need to learn to change your own behavior (Miller, Roloff, and Reznik
2014). That’s where conflict resolution begins.
Conflict is an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive
incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals.
An Expressed Struggle
An interpersonal approach to conflict management focuses on the communicative
exchanges that make up the conflict episode. Intrapersonal conflict—internal strain that
creates a state of ambivalence, conflicting internal dialogue, or lack of resolution in one’s
thinking and feeling—accompanies interpersonal conflict. One may endure intrapersonal
conflict for a while before such a struggle is expressed communicatively. If you are upset
with your father yet you do not write him, or you phone him less often and avoid express-
ing your concern, do you have a conflict?
Application 1.1 My Intrapersonal Conflicts
Think of an intrapersonal strain you may be feeling right now, or felt for a while in the past. What is
the struggle you feel? Think of a picture or metaphor to describe what you are feeling. What words
describe the internal strain? Have you ever lived through an intrapersonal conflict that did not ever
become expressed? If you answered yes to this question, ask yourself if you might have expressed
the conflict ever so slightly in some way. How might you have expressed the internal conflict non-
verbally, or by actions you did not take?
Conflict is present when every person’s perception of the struggle is communicated.

The verbal or nonverbal communication may be subtle—a slight shift in body placement
by Jill and a hurried greeting by Susan—but it must be present for the activity to be inter-
personal conflict. Therefore, although other conditions must also exist before an interac-
tion is labeled “conflict,” Jandt (1973) asserts, “Conflict exists when the parties involved
agree in some way that the behaviors associated with their relationship are labeled as
‘conflict’ behavior” (2). Often, the communicative behavior is easily identified with con-
flict, such as when one party openly disagrees with the other. Other times, however, an
interpersonal conflict may be operating at a more tacit level. Two friends, for instance, may
both be consciously avoiding the other because both think, “I don’t want to see him for a
few days because of what he did.” The interpersonal struggle is expressed by the avoid-
ance. Intrapersonal perceptions are the bedrock upon which conflicts are built; but only
4 Part 1 Conflict Components
when there are communicative manifestations of these perceptions will an “interpersonal

conflict” emerge.
Communication is the central element in all interpersonal conflict. Communication
and conflict are related in the following ways:
∙ Communication behavior often creates conflict.

∙ Communication behavior reflects conflict.
∙ Communication is the vehicle for the productive or destructive management of conflict.
Thus, communication and conflict are inextricably tied. How one communicates in
a conflict situation has profound implications for the impact of that conflict. If two work
associates are vying for the same position, they can handle the competition in a variety of
ways. They may engage in repetitive, damaging rounds with one another, or they may suc-
cessfully manage the conflict. Communication can be used to exacerbate the conflict or to
lead to its productive management.
The following example explains how to move a conflict from an internally experi-
enced strain to an interpersonal communication:
Leslie: (To new husband, Greg, referring to Greg’s 15-year-old son.) I’ve noticed Brennan
is using my towels and other stuff from our bathroom instead of the things from his
bathroom. Do you think he’s annoyed because he can’t share our bathroom any more?
Or he is just being thoughtless? I don’t want to share our bathroom and I can’t stand it
when he leaves damp towels all over the place!
Greg: I don’t know. He hasn’t said anything. Do you want me to check it out, or do you
want to?
Leslie: (Sigh.) Well, I’m uncomfortable, but it’s my job to check it out. I won’t make
assumptions. I’ll just ask him.
This situation could have escalated into a “war of the towels,” or been handled unproduc-
tively by the stepmom leaving curt notes, the stepson avoiding contact, and both building
up negative assumptions about the other. As it happened, the boy did admit to his new
stepmother that he was irritated. He and his father had lived together for years without
bothering much about which towel was whose, and he resented being told which bathroom
and towels to use. Leslie had a chance to say what privacy and neatness meant to her. The
three of them talked it through, defusing what could have been a big conflict that would
have been over the wrong things (towels instead of the new relationships).
Another example demonstrates how you might make an intrapersonal conflict into an
interpersonal conflict:
Greg, your co-worker, looks up briefly when you settle at your desk, but looks down quickly.
You: What’s up, Greg?
Greg: Nothing.
Notice your choices here. You could say nothing, while wondering what might be
going on with Greg. Your avoidance might start an avoidance spiral. Or, you might say,
You: We haven’t checked in since I was added into your work/life balance project. Any
concerns I should know about?
Greg: Not at all. (He is not engaging yet.)
You: I have some ideas. I’ll write them up and bring them to our team meeting Tuesday.
Greg: We don’t have management buy-in yet. Seems like we might be wasting our time.
Notice that Greg appears to be worrying about the entire project, not your involvement.
If you had taken his nonresponse personally, you would have misperceived his thoughts.
This is a good place to stop until the next meeting.
Most expressed struggles become activated by a triggering event. A staff member
of a counseling agency is fired, setting off a series of meetings culminating in the staff’s
demand to the board that the director be fired. Or, in a roommate situation, Jon comes
home one night and the locks are changed on the door. The triggering event brings the
conflict to everyone’s attention.
Interdependence
Conflict parties engage in an expressed struggle and interfere with one another because
they are interdependent. “A person who is not dependent upon another—that is, who has
no special interest in what the other does—has no conflict with that other person” (Braiker
and Kelley 1979, 137). Each person’s choices affect the other because conflict is a mutual
activity. People are seldom totally opposed to each other. Even two people who are having
an “intellectual conflict” over politics are to some extent cooperating with each other. They
have, in effect, tacitly agreed, “Look, we are going to have this verbal argument, and we
aren’t going to hit each other, and both of us will get certain rewards for participating in
this flexing of our intellectual muscles. We’ll play by the rules, which we both understand.”
Schelling (1960) calls strategic conflict (conflict in which parties have choices as opposed
to conflict in which the power is so disparate that there are virtually no choices) a “theory
of precarious partnership” or “incomplete antagonism.” In other words, even these infor-
mal debaters concerned with politics cannot formulate their verbal tactics until they know
the “moves” made by the other party.
Parties in strategic conflict, therefore, are never totally antagonistic and must have
mutual interests, even if the interest is only in keeping the conflict going. Without openly
saying so, they often are thinking, “How can we have this conflict in a way that increases
the benefit to me?” These decisions are complex, with parties reacting not in a linear,
cause–effect manner but with a series of interdependent decisions. Bateson (1972) presents
an “ecological” view of patterns in relationships. As in the natural environment, in which
a decision to eliminate coyotes because they are a menace to sheep affects the overall bal-
ance of animals and plants, no one party in a conflict can make a decision that is totally
separate—each decision affects the other conflict participants. In all conflicts, therefore,
interdependence carries elements of cooperation and elements of competition. In true con-
flicts, the parties are “stuck with each other.”
Even though conflict parties are always interdependent to some extent, how they per-
ceive their mutuality affects their later choices. Parties decide, although they may not be
aware of this decision, whether they will act as relatively interdependent agents or rela-
tively independent agents. Both or all may agree that “we are in this together,” or they
may believe that “just doing my own thing” is possible and desirable. A couple had been
divorced for 3 years and came to a mediator to decide what to do about changing visita-
tion agreements as their three children grew older. In the first session, the former husband
seemed to want a higher degree of interdependence than did the former wife. He wanted to
communicate frequently by phone, adopting flexible arrangements based on the children’s
wishes and his travel schedule. She wanted a monthly schedule set up in advance, com-
municated in writing. After talking through their common interest in their children, their
own complicated work and travel lives, the children’s school and sports commitments, and
their new spouses’ discomfort with frequent, flexible contact between the former part-
ners, they worked out a solution that suited them both. Realizing that they were unavoid-
ably interdependent, they agreed to lessen their verbal and in-person communication about
arrangements while agreeing to maintain e-mail communication about upcoming schedul-
ing. They worked out an acceptable level of interdependence.
An example of negotiating interdependence occurred with Katie, a junior in college,
and her mother, Sharon. Katie wanted to set up a 30th anniversary party for her parents, who
live just 2 hours from her college. Her mother, Sharon, kept saying on the phone, “Don’t
bother. Don’t go to any trouble. It’s not worth it.” Katie persisted that she and her younger
sister really wanted to do this (she insisted that they were interdependent). Mom stopped
answering the phone and returning e-mails. Katie drove home the next weekend and asked
Mom to talk the whole thing through with her. Katie learned that Mom was so angry
with Dad for ignoring the upcoming event that she wanted to withdraw. She couldn’t
imagine enjoying a party that came only from her kids while she was simmering with
resentment at her husband. So Katie talked to Dad about helping plan the party. Mom told
her husband that she had been feeling hurt and slighted. They all got involved and had a
good time. Now, notice that it was not Katie’s role to play therapist with her parents—but
she helped by asking them to talk to her and to each other. In a healthy family, everyone
can talk to every other member. This builds healthy interdependence.
Sometimes parties are locked into a position of mutual interdependence whether
they want to be or not. In some cases, interdependent units do not choose to be interdepen-
dent but are so for other compelling reasons. Some colleagues in an office, for instance, got
into a conflict over when they were to be in their offices to receive calls and speak with cus-
tomers. One group took the position that “what we do doesn’t affect you—it’s none of your
business.” The other group convinced the first group that they could not define themselves
as unconnected, because the rest of the group had to be available to fill in for them when
they were not available. They were inescapably locked into interdependence. If a working
decision had not been made, the parties would have almost guaranteed an unproductive
conflict, with each party making choices as if they were only tenuously connected.
When you are stuck in unproductive interdependence, these conflicts turn into
gridlocked conflicts.
You Know You’re in Gridlock When . . .
∙ The conflict makes you feel rejected by your partner.
∙ You keep talking but make no headway.
∙ You become entrenched and are unwilling to budge.
∙ You feel more frustrated and hurt after you talk than before.
∙ Your talk is devoid of humor, amusement, or affection.
∙ You become more entrenched over time so you become insulting during your talks.
∙ More vilification makes you more polarized, extreme, and less willing to compromise.
∙ Eventually you disengage emotionally or physically or both (Gottman 1999, 132–33).
Think about how you feel when you are gridlocked in traffic. You may feel full of road
rage, derisive of the stupid other drivers, furious at the system, defeated and hopeless, or
numb and tuned out. The same emotions happen in a gridlocked interpersonal conflict.
Trying harder often doesn’t work. That’s when you need to try smarter instead of harder.
When nothing is working, try something different. Destructive conflicts rely on the same
old (unproductive) strategies.
Most relationships move back and forth between degrees of independence and inter-
dependence. At times there will be an emphasis on “me”—what I want—and on separate-
ness, whereas at other times “we”—our nature as a unit—becomes the focus. These are
natural rhythmic swings in relationships. In productive conflict relationships, dissonance
(clashes, disharmony) and resonance (harmony, deep positive response) become balanced
in a natural rhythm (Putnam 2010). Just as we all need both stability and change, conflict
parties have to balance their independence and dependence needs.
Relationship and interdependence issues precede other issues in the conflict. Actually,
these negotiations over interdependence permeate most conflicts throughout the course of
the relationship, never becoming completely settled. Address the interdependence issue
openly in ongoing, highly important relationships. In more transient and less salient rela-
tionships, the interdependence may be primarily tacit, or understood.
Perceived Incompatible Goals

What do people fight about? (We use the word fight to mean verbal conflict, not physical
violence.) People engage in conflict over goals that are important to them. One company
had an extreme morale problem. The head cashier said, “All our problems would be solved
if we could just get some carpet, because everyone’s feet get tired—we’re the ones who
have to stand up all day. But management won’t spend a penny for us.” Her statement
of incompatible goals was clear—carpet versus no carpet. But as the interviews in which
we discovered intrapersonal strains progressed, another need emerged. She began to talk
about how no one noticed when her staff had done good work and how the “higher-ups”
only noticed when lines were long and mistakes were made. There was a silence, then she
blurted out, “How about some compliments once in a while? No one ever says anything
nice. They don’t even know we’re here.” Her stated goals then changed to include not only
carpet but also self-esteem and increased attention from management—a significant deep-
ening of the goal statement. Both goals, carpets and self-esteem, were real, but the first goal
may have been incompatible with management’s desires, whereas the second might not; the
need for recognition may have been important to both the cashiers and management.
We do not support the overly simple notion that if people just communicated they
would see that their goals are the same. Opposing goals remain a fact of life. Many times,
people are absolutely convinced they have opposing goals and cannot agree on anything to
pursue together. However, if goals are reframed or put in a different context, the parties can
agree. Recently a student teacher’s supervisor outlined her goals for the student. Included
in the list was the demand that the student turn in a list of the three most and least positive
experiences in the classroom each week. The student asked to be transferred to another
teaching supervisor. The chair asked why, saying, “Ms. Barker is one of our best supervi-
sors.” The student said, “That’s what I’ve heard, but I can’t be open about my failures with
someone who’s going to give me my ending evaluation. That will go in my permanent
files.” In a joint discussion with the supervisor and the student, the chair found that both
were able to affirm that they valued feedback about positive and negative experiences.
Their goals were more similar than they had thought; the means for achieving them were
different. The supervisor agreed to use the list as a starting point for discussion but not to
keep copies; the student agreed to list experiences so the supervisor would not feel that the
student was hiding her negative experiences. Trust was built through a discussion of goals.
Perceptions of the incompatibility of the goals changed through clear communication. Are
you noticing that it’s difficult to resolve conflict without talking with each other?
Goals are perceived as incompatible because parties want (1) the same thing or
(2) different things. First, the conflict parties may want the same thing—for example, the
promotion in the company, the one available scholarship, or the attention of the parents.
They struggle and jockey for position in order to attain the desired goal. They perceive
the situation as one where there “isn’t enough to go around.” Thus, they see their goal as
incompatible with the other person’s because they both want the same thing.
Second, sometimes the goals are different. Mark and Tom, for example, decide to eat
out. Mark wants to go to Bananas and Tom wants to go to Pearl’s. They struggle over the
incompatible choices. Sometimes the goals are not as opposed as they seem. Two roommates
would like to move out of the dorm and into an apartment. After looking around, Janet
tells Allison that she thinks she’d “better just stay put.” Allison was, naturally, hurt. As
they talked about the situation, Janet told Allison she was afraid Allison wanted to spend
more than Janet was able to. They found an acceptable budget and agreed to stick with it,
thus resetting their goals more clearly. Of course, many times the content goals seem to be
different (like which restaurant to go to), but beneath them is a relational struggle over who
gets to decide. Regardless of whether the participants see the goals as similar or different,
perceived incompatible goals are central to all conflicts.
Perceived Scarce Resources

A resource can be defined as “any positively perceived physical, economic, or social
consequence” (Miller and Steinberg 1975, 65). The resources may be objectively real or
perceived as real by the person. Likewise, the scarcity, or limitation, may be apparent or
actual. For example, close friends often think that if their best friend begins to like some-
one else too, then the supply of affection available to the original friend will diminish—a
perceived scarce resource. This may or may not be so, but a perception that affection is
scarce may well create genuine conflict between the friends. Sometimes, then, the most
appropriate behavior is attempting to change the other person’s perception of the resource
instead of trying to reallocate the resource. Ultimately, one person can never force another
to change his or her valuing of a resource or perception of how much of the resource is
available, but persuasion coupled with supportive responses for the person fearful of losing
the reward can help.
Money, natural resources such as oil or land, and jobs may indeed be scarce or limited
resources. Getting a class you need for graduation might be a scarce resource, if the class
is closed. Intangible commodities such as love, esteem, attention, and caring also may
be perceived as scarce. Information can be perceived as a scarce resource. If you are lost
because you wandered away from the marked ski trails, and you don’t have a map, you
need to know where to go, and how to reach the ski patrol. If your cell phone won’t work,
you desperately need people to come along and help you. All these are, for this desperate
moment, scarce resources because of the situation you are in, not because cell phones,
maps, and friendly strangers are inherently scarce. When rewards are perceived as scarce,
an expressed struggle may be initiated.
And sometimes resources really are scarce. No amount of effort to change the perception
will make the resource abundant. Some other conflict strategy will have to be employed.
In interpersonal struggles, two resources often perceived as scarce are power and
self-esteem. Whether the parties are in conflict over a desired romantic partner or a
change in work hours, perceived scarcities of power and self-esteem are involved. People
engaged in conflict often say things reflecting power and self-esteem struggles, such as in
the following scenarios:
“She always gets her own way.” (She has more power than I do, and I feel at a con-
stant disadvantage. I’m always one down.)
“He is so sarcastic! Who does he think he is? I don’t have to put up with his attitude!”
(I don’t have ways to protect myself from biting sarcasm. It feels like an attack. I feel
humiliated. The only power I have is to leave or try to compete with equal sarcasm,
which makes me feel awful.)
“I refuse to pay one more penny in child support.” (I feel unimportant. I don’t get to
see the children very often. I’ve lost my involvement with them. Money is the only
way I have to let that be known. I don’t want to feel like a loser and a fool.)
“I won’t cover for her if she asks me again. She can find someone else to work the
night shift when her kids get sick.” (I feel taken advantage of. She only pays attention
to me when she needs a favor.)
Regardless of the particular subjects involved, people in conflict usually perceive that they
have too little power and self-esteem and that the other party has too much. Since each
person thinks and feels convinced this imbalance is “true,” something needs to be adjusted.
Often, giving the other person some respect, courtesy, and ways to save face removes their
need to use power excessively. Remember, people usually think the other person has more
power and self-esteem. We don’t perceive other people the way they perceive themselves.
Interference
People may be interdependent, perceive incompatible goals, want the same scarce resource,
and still may not experience what we call conflict. Interference, or the perception of inter-
ference, is necessary to complete the conditions for conflict. If the presence of another
person interferes with desired actions, conflict intensifies. Conflict is associated with
blocking, and the person doing the blocking is perceived as the problem. For instance, a
college sophomore worked in a sandwich shop the summer before her junior year abroad.
She worked two jobs, scarcely having time to eat and sleep. She was invited to a party at
a cabin in the wilderness, and she really wanted to go. She worked overtime on one day
then asked for a day off from the sandwich shop, but the employer was reluctant to say yes,
because the student was the only one the employer trusted to open the shop and keep the
till. For an angry moment, the employer, who was interfering with what the student wanted
to do, seemed like the main problem. Goals appeared incompatible, no one else was avail-
able to open (scarce resource), and the two parties were interdependent because the student
needed the job and the owner needed her shop opened and the cash monitored. She was
about to say, “No. I’m sorry, but I can’t cover you.” The student volunteered to train some-
one else, on her own time, to cover for her. The problem was solved, at least for this round,
and the conflict was avoided. But if the student had quit in disgust or the employer had said
no, both would have sacrificed important goals.
Another example of perceived interference involves Kelly, who prizes time alone in
a lookout tower each summer. She plans for the weeks and looks forward to that solitude
each year. When her two college-age daughters asked to join her, Kelly hesitated, say-
ing she didn’t think there was enough room. The daughters were disappointed and hurt,
because they had been away at college and thought this would be a wonderful way to all
be together. Mom could have told them she loved solitude and asked whether they could
figure out some way so they could be together, but her quiet time could be maintained. For
instance, the daughters like to hike and might have been glad to plan several days of hiking.
Instead, the situation stayed unresolved and hurt feelings simmered.
Being blocked and interfered with is such a disturbing experience that our first “take”
is usually anger and blame. We will discuss later the difference between intent and impact.
For now, we suggest you adopt this radical idea:
You do not know what other people are thinking unless you enter into honest dialogue. You
don’t know their intention without dialogue. You can’t read minds. Conversation is the best
approach.
The study of conflict should be viewed as a basic human requirement and the practice
of constructive conflict as an essential set of interpersonal skills (Sillars 2009). We have
confidence that your lives will be enriched by what you will learn in this course, and what
you will continue to learn for the rest of your lives. Welcome to the process!
Why Study Conflict?

Mental health and overall happiness improve with a constructive conflict process. When
people experience conflicts, much of their energy goes into emotions and strategizing
related to those conflicts. They may be fearful, angry, resentful, hopeless, preoccupied,
or stressed. Adding to one’s repertoire for resolving conflicts reduces a common stressor.
Ineffective resolution of interpersonal disputes adds to pessimism and hopelessness. Eating
disorders, physical and psychological abuse of partners, and problem drinking (Murphy
and O’Farrell 1994) also are associated with destructive conflict environments.
Family Relationships
Our family of origin socializes us into constructive or destructive ways of handling con-
flict. How did your family approach difficult conversations? Did everyone avoid tough
topics, or was your family oriented toward conversation (Keating et al. 2013)? You will
be given a chance to reflect on your family’s approach in Chapter 2. However your family
dealt with difficult conversations, the responses to such topics set the course for any future
conversations. For instance, if a young person discloses that he or she is sexually active,
parental response will determine how free that person feels in the future. If disagreements
remain respectful, even if forceful, the young person will engage much more easily in
the future. Your experiences in your family predict how romantic relationships are later
handled (Koerner and Fitzpatrick 2002). Sadly stepfamilies’ conflicts are destructive 95%
of the time (Baxter, Braithwaite, and Nicholson 1999).
Family research is quite clear about the systemwide effects of destructive marital
conflict. Negative conflict between the parents reduces the family’s network of friends and
creates more loneliness (Jones 1992). Conflict between the parents tends to both change
the mood of household interactions and shift the parents’ attention to the negative behav-
iors of their children. Parental conflict has a direct negative impact on the children. You
probably remember the most negative conflicts in your family of origin, while you may
not remember specific instances of conflicts that were handled constructively. Commu-
nication patterns between fathers and their young adult children seem to follow a circular
relationship—the young adults treat their fathers the way they were treated (Dumlao and
Botta 2000). Conflict between parents predicts well-being of the children, with more con-
flict associated with maladaptive behavior on the part of the children (Dunn and Tucker
1993; Garber 1991; Grych and Fincham 1990; Jouriles, Bourg, and Farris 1991). Finally,
the effects of destructive conflict patterns suggest that “ongoing conflict at home has a
greater impact on adolescent distress and symptoms than does parental divorce” (Jaycox
and Repetti 1993, 344). Parents who either avoid conflict or engage in negative cycles
of mutual damage directly influence the children’s subsequent lives. A modest relation-
ship exists between mothers who avoid conflict and their daughters’ marital satisfaction
(VanLear 1992). On the other end of the continuum, children who are exposed to harsh dis-
cipline practices at home (which coincides with a negative and hostile relationship between
the parents) are more at risk for aggression, hyperactivity, and internalizing by withdraw-
ing, having somatic complaints, and experiencing depressive symptoms (Jaycox and Repetti
1993). When children experience or witness child physical abuse or domestic violence
between parents, they often develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This diagnosis is
especially complicated when children witness these events many times. While trauma may
be the cause, other disorders may develop as well (Margolin and Vickerman 2007).
Children and adults who were physically and sexually abused as children face signifi-
cant difficulties in their later conflicts. It is not possible to generalize completely, because
many people exhibit remarkable resilience and effectiveness in their lives despite terrible
abuse. Yet common responses to abuse, including the verbal abuse of yelling and the silent
treatment, are hypervigilance; difficulty relaxing; withdrawal at the first sign of tension or
conflict; floating away, or dissociating; and not knowing or expressing what one really wants.
Children’s own attitudes toward marriage are directly affected by the conflict between
their parents. If their parents have frequent conflict, children have a much less favorable atti-
tude toward marriage (Jennings, Salts, and Smith 1991). A child’s general feeling of self-worth
is directly affected by interparental conflict (Garber 1991). This means that it isn’t primarily
a question of whether parents divorce or not that affects the children; rather, it is the level of
conflict present in either the intact family or the restructured family that impacts the children.
When parents and adolescents think the other person intended to hurt them, the effects
of the conflicts are destructive, and make it less likely that adolescents will learn to repair
relationships and engage in constructive conflict (McLaren and Sillars 2014).
The number of conflicts experienced does not seem to predict poor health and well-
being as much as whether the individuals perceive the conflict to be resolvable (Malis
and Roloff 2006). Through studying the practices presented in this book, and learning
about constructive conflict, you will gain hope, which will reduce your overall stress and
pessimism.
Simply stated, the level of conflict and how destructive it is affect all areas of family
well-being. If you, as a present or future parent, change your own conflict resolution skills,
you will affect everyone in your families, present and future. As you look back on your
own family history, you probably know the truth of this statement.
The study of conflict can pay big dividends in your personal relationships. If you are
an adolescent or a parent of an adolescent, it will come as no surprise to you that it takes
about 10 years after an adolescent leaves home for parents and children to negotiate roles
that bring them closer to equality than they were in their earlier parent–child relationship
(Comstock 1994). At the heart of this negotiation is the conflict process. The study of con-
flict can assist in this process of redrawing family boundaries, letting you see which styles
backfire, and which ones work best.
Love Relationships
We all know that love relationships provide a rigorous test of our ability to manage conflict.
Siegert and Stamp (1994) studied the effects of the “First Big Fight” in dating relationships,
noting that some couples survive and prosper, whereas others break up. These communication
researchers tell us quite clearly that “the big difference between the nonsurvivors and survi-
vors was the way they perceived and handled conflict” (357). “What determines the course
of a relationship . . . is in a large measure determined by how successfully the participants
move through conflict episodes” (Wilmot 1995, 95). Couples must learn to process fights
and other disagreeable events rather than repeating them. Processing an argument means that
the partners discuss the argument without redoing the fight. In order to achieve this difficult
task, partners must take turns talking about what they were feeling and thinking during the
incident, listening carefully and validating what the other says, admitting one’s own role in
the conflict, and exploring ways to make the difficult conversation run more smoothly next
time (Gottman and Gottman 2008). This ability to process takes restraint and skill. Much
of the book will discuss how to achieve this ability to process.
While married individuals are generally healthier than unmarried persons, if you
are married and in conflict, your health is likely to be poorer than that of single people
(Burman and Margolin 1992). People in same-sex relationships remain at greater risk for
breakups, due to gender identity distress, lack of other relationship options, and less social
support than different-sex couples enjoy (Khaddouma et al. 2015). Hostile behavior dur-
ing conflictual interactions seems to relate to changes in one’s immune system, resulting
in poorer overall physical health (Kiecolt-Glaser et al. 1996). Wives appear to suffer more
from hostile conflictual situations than do husbands (Kiecolt-Glaser et al. 1996).
One key skill in all long-term committed relationships is conflict management—
certainly, the data on marriages suggest this is true (Gottman 1994). The presence or
absence of conflict does not determine the quality of a marriage; rather, how the couple
handles conflictual situations determines the quality of the relationship (Comstock and
Strzyzewski 1990). Even beliefs about conflict are more important to marital happiness
than whether or not the two partners actually agree with one another (Crohan 1992).
How you handle conflict spreads to other members of your family. For example, it has
been noted that adult children who are taking care of their parents usually have high levels
of conflict with siblings (Merrill 1996). Learning effective skills for dealing with your
younger brother or sister is far better than engaging in a family dispute that will affect your
children and subsequent generations as well.
The Workplace
So far, we have presented the reasons for studying conflict in personal relationships. In
addition, conflicts at work present important challenges that affect your career develop-
ment. “Conflict is a stubborn fact of organizational life” (Kolb and Putnam 1992, 311).
We carry our interpersonal relationships into our workplaces; work life and private life
intertwine. Effective communication in couple relationships helps moderate these inevi-
table workplace conflicts (Carroll et al. 2013). One study surveyed workers and found
that almost 85% reported conflicts at work (Bergmann and Volkema 1994). With an
increasing awareness of cultural diversity and gender equity issues, it is imperative that
we become familiar with issues surrounding promotions and harassment. In fact, one can
see communication training in organizations as a form of preventive conflict management
(Hathaway 1995). Managers need to learn conflict skills to intervene in disputes in their
organization.
Conflict pervades many different work settings. One study reviewed the causes and
pervasive impact of conflict in nursing, suggesting different interventions to help prevent
and manage conflict (Brinkert 2010). Nursing involves so much communication between
other nurses, doctors and physician assistants, patients and families, that conflicts natu-
rally emerge. Often these interactions take place in confusing, stressful, understaffed, and
even life-threatening situations. Conflict among nurses in team situations is viewed more
positively in situations where high-quality patient care and an emphasis on communica-
tion processes is present (Kim, Nicoters, and McNulty 2015). This means that training
in good communication will affect nurses’ willingness to engage in conflict, and that the
conflict is more likely to be judged as constructive. Nurses perform tasks requiring a high
degree of emotional intelligence; and those who manage their emotions well experience
less job stress and thus enjoy more well-being (Karimi et al. 2013). Learning a high degree
of emotional intelligence means you will handle conflict and stress well, no matter what
professional realm you enter.
Ongoing, unresolved workplace conflict also presents negative effects that reach far
beyond the principal parties. If the executive director of a nonprofit agency and her board
cannot get along, employees tend to take sides, fear for their jobs, and, like those above
them, wage a campaign discrediting the other group. Health care environments present
the probability of damaging conflicts. For instance, when doctors and nurses engage in
destructive conflict, the patient suffers. When nurses, who often know the patient’s situa-
tion most intimately, withdraw, patient illness and death rises (Forte 1997). Serious inter-
professional conflict results in an alarmingly higher number of medical errors than when
teamwork is not in conflict (Baldwin Jr. and Daugherty 2008).
Ignoring workplace conflict sets destructive forces in motion that decrease productiv-
ity, spread the conflict to others, and lead to lower morale. In one organization, the CEO
was on the verge of reorganizing the structure, affecting 600 people, so that two vice presi-
dents would not have to talk to one another! Organizations depend on leaders to become
expert conflict managers. They should develop the skills to lead task-related conflicts with
conflict resolution skills. When the conflict centers around relationship issues, they must
be skilled enough not to be afraid to dive into the relationship issues that are driving the
conflict. When leaders ignore relationship issues, the conflict will go underground and get
more toxic (Curseu 2011).
In college, you may experience conflicts with friends, roommates, romantic partners,
professors, teaching assistants, your employer, and even your parents. One study showed
something that won’t surprise you: When parents and students agree on the relative impor-
tance of goals, less conflict evolves. Students often value independence, control of their
emotional environment, health, social relationships, and financial concerns. Parents often
value moral, religious, or educational goals (Morton and Markey 2009). When conflict
arises with your parents, a good strategy is to make sure what you are disagreeing about.
You may be talking past each other, or you may agree on many issues but be in disagree-
ment on only one or two. In one situation, Kristin and her parents argued over whether
she should go to summer school. Kristin did not want to; rather, she wanted to be with her
friends after work and relax from the rigorous academic schedule she kept the previous
year. Her parents wanted Kristin to attend summer school full time and work part time. For
a while they went back and forth, arguing, until finally her parents said, “Our goal is for
you to graduate in 4 years.” Kristin replied, “I thought you wanted me to make as much of
a financial contribution as I could.” Her parents explained that graduating on time would
far outweigh the value of money Kristin could make. Kristin showed her parents her advis-
ing packet, which indicated that she could graduate in 4 years if she took only two extra
courses in the summer. By analyzing what the argument really was about, Kristin and her
parents came to a good, negotiated plan—neither a compromise, capitulation, nor a forced
and disliked plan for Kristin.
Teaching and the educational system provide many opportunities for difficult con-
flict. Principals who adopt transparent, enforced codes of interaction among their teaching
staff help build trusting, less conflicting relationships. Trust enhances collaboration, or
the ability to work together for commonly identified goals (Cosner 2011). We know of too
many instances in which principals, deans, heads of schools, union representatives, depart-
ment heads, and other educational leaders do not work in an open, trusting way. These
educational institutions are very likely to experience damaging, expensive, and disruptive
conflicts. In one situation in which we intervened, two staff members would not speak to
each other, even about their shared tasks of supervising student interns, because their prin-
cipal shared little of her thinking and decision making with the staff. She played favorites,
only circulated certain information, broke agreements, and made each supervisor believe
the other one was out of favor. As a result, the two internship supervisors saw no need to
cooperate with each other. Often, as in this case, the root of the problem is with the princi-
pal, not the supervisors. When she changed to an open communication style, the extreme
mistrust and uncivil behavior lessened almost completely between the supervisors. Teach-
ers, whose jobs are usually quite stressful, suffer less burnout and stress when they turn
to supportive teacher-colleagues and school counselors (Tatar 2009). Some advantages to
studying organizational conflicts include:
∙ As an employee, you can learn how to get along with

∙ Fellow employees
∙ Your manager
∙ The public
∙ You will be perceived as more skilled
∙ You will be able to help prevent workplace conflicts
∙ As a supervisor, you can begin to
∙ Know when conflicts are likely to occur
∙ Learn productive responses
∙ Receive more cooperation from employees
∙ Help employees resolve their disputes with one another
∙ Keep interpersonal conflicts from spreading to other parts of the organization
∙ Teach teams how to handle their own conflicts
Employees at all levels who are skilled in conflict resolution bring gifts to their work-
place; their skills help them and other employees with job satisfaction, promotions, and
effectiveness in the workplace.
As you will see in Chapter 9, you might study conflict so you can help others in inter-
personal conflict. At a minimum, you must understand conflict dynamics, and coupled
with specific intervention skills, you can be maximally helpful to children, friends, family
members, and work associates.
The Importance of Skill Development

Conflict management skills require thoughtful practice. Few people seem to be natural
conflict managers. Children, from toddlers to adolescents, can learn different levels of
skills. Adults would be much better off if they were given appropriate training throughout
their life development (Sandy 2014). If you were not offered any specific training, such
as peer mediation programs in public schools, when you were younger, it’s not too late to
begin now. We hope you will then teach children in your lives more about conflict resolu-
tion skills. While you may admire couples who never seem to engage in conflict, couples
who never engage in conflict are at long-term risk (McGonagle, Kessler, and Gotlib 1993,
398). Common myths of ideal relationships and happy marriages sometimes assume that
conflict is a “bad sign.” But this is not true. As always, the way a conflict is handled pre-
dicts whether the couple, the work group, or the manager–employer dyad will thrive. In
conflict, we must learn to “do what comes unnaturally.” If we do what we have always
done, we will keep getting the results we have always gotten—results that may keep us
mired in the same old patterns. Who would imagine, for instance, that moving toward bad
news, instead of away from bad news, is often the better strategy? How many of us intui-
tively know to tell more of the truth when a conflict is becoming destructive rather than
keeping quiet or yelling? In the middle of a conflict, if someone insists that “this is really
simple!” they probably mean “this would be simple if you would adopt my perspective.”
As you will learn, conflict is anything but simple.
Adolescents without specific conflict resolution training or excellent modeling use
naïve resolution strategies with friends. More than 50% of adolescent conflicts are resolved
by either standoffs, where parties divert their attention to something else, leaving the con-
flict unresolved, or withdrawal, in which one person refuses to continue to engage (Sandy
2014). Consider which strategies remain barely used at all: third-party intervention, compro-
mise, or listening-centered communication. Because young adults are only a few years past
adolescence, it’s not surprising that avoidance and withdrawal continue to describe many
young-adult conflicts. Think of the last conflict in which you participated which ended in
standoff or withdrawal, or worse yet, submission. How satisfying was that conflict for you?
Unresolved conflict has a tremendous negative impact. It directly affects the parties
themselves. In personal relationships, unresolved conflict leads to drifting away from one
another and sometimes jettisoning the relationship entirely. In the workplace, it leads to low
productivity and being fired. In an organization known to us, one employee has been “on
the radar” of the senior managers for several years. She will be given a performance review
that details what she must change in 2 months. The senior manager has not been willing to
confront the problem employee directly and effectively. Therefore, the employee will prob-
ably be fired or the employee will find another job, and the organization will be without an
employee because of a hiring freeze. The conflict stayed unresolved for so long that nega-
tive perceptions became carved in the stone of disappointment. Everyone will lose.
The benefits of learning effective skills in conflict result in:
∙ Improvement in mental health—your own and others’
∙ Long-term satisfaction in your family, your love relationships, and at work
∙ People around you benefit from your improved skills
Conflict management draws upon the skills of emotional intelligence. This popular
concept is defined as “the capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of others,
for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselves and in our relation-
ships” (Goleman 1998, 317). Later in the book we will discuss management of emotions in
detail. As you can see at this point, recognizing feelings, self-motivation, and dealing with
feelings are skills that pervade all of conflict management. Workplaces now ask employees
to be excellent with “people skills”—the precise skills useful in conflict management. One
study showed that employees with emotional intelligence were able to mediate well with
those who used negative “forcing” and “withdrawing” styles in their organization. Those
with emotional intelligence helped foster good organizational citizenship (Salami 2010).
Why is emotional intelligence so important for conflict management? Let’s look at the
20 competencies organized into four clusters that describe emotional intelligence.
SELF-AWARENESS
1. Emotional self-awareness
2. Accurate self-assessment
3. Self-confidence
SELF-MANAGEMENT
4. Self-control
5. Trustworthiness (continued)
6. Conscientiousness
7. Adaptability
8. Achievement orientation
9. Initiative
SOCIAL AWARENESS
10. Empathy
11. Organizational awareness
12. Service orientation
SOCIAL SKILLS
13. Developing others
14. Leadership
15. Influence
16. Communication
17. Change-catalyst
18. Conflict management
19. Building bonds
20. Teamwork and collaboration
Notice that the first three clusters must be mastered before you can effectively operate
within the Social Skills area. We will lead you through concepts and exercises that will help
you develop skills in all these areas. This kind of skill development takes a lifetime, and
underlies adult development. Emotional intelligence skills are needed in intimate relation-
ships, family communication, workplace communication, and community and worldwide
leadership. For example, you may have a long-standing conflictual relationship with one of
your siblings. When you begin to see each other much less frequently, the daily irritations
may well subside, giving you an opportunity to approach each other differently. Yet, hurts
and fights from the past may make it difficult to create a new relationship. The ideas in this
book will give you some starting places for finding new ground with your families.
Why study conflict? Because if we don’t, we are more likely to repeat the damaging
patterns we see on the job and in our homes. Examining the dynamics of conflict will allow
you to unpack those dynamics, see what brings on destructive moves, and build more pro-
ductive options for ourselves both at work and at home. Since the first edition of this book
was published in 1978, writers have agreed that conflict is not different from “regular”
communication but is a part of the ongoing flow of the communication between human
beings. We might define ourselves as being “in conflict,” of varying intensities, many times
a day or week. Even people who vastly prefer peace, harmony, and calm interaction find
themselves involved in situations that are tense, escalating, and uncomfortable. Truly, we
do not have the option of staying out of conflict unless we stay out of relationships, fami-
lies, work, and community. Conflict happens—so we had best be prepared for it.
Application 1.2
Discuss with a small group what you believe are your three key strengths from the list above. What
are three areas that you believe, or have been told, need development? Give examples of the
positive and “needs work” examples you describe. Then, name and describe some people you
know who model certain areas of emotional intelligence. What do you notice that they do?
Application 1.2.1 Jon and His Mother
The following dialogue may be familiar to you in tone, if not in content:
TAKE I
Jon (Thinking through how to talk with his mother and make a request for more financial
help until he goes to college in the fall term): My graduation expenses cost a lot more than I
thought they would. I had to pay for the senior trip, the dinner, and all kinds of things I didn’t
know would come up. I don’t know how I’m going to pay for my car insurance this summer. I
promised Mom that I would pay for my graduation expenses and personal expenses in June
out of my summer job. But I haven’t been able to find one yet. I’m kind of anxious. I know
she hasn’t planned on spending more money on my personal expenses. I guess I overesti-
mated what I could earn, and how quickly. I’m kind of embarrassed to have to ask for help.
But I don’t know what else to do.
Jon: Mom, I have not been able to save as much money as I hoped to for my graduation
expenses and personal expenses in June. My job after school just didn’t pay enough. And
while I’m looking for work, as you know, I haven’t found anything yet except for split-shift
fast-food work, which we both agreed would be my last resort. So, while I hate to ask, I am
wondering if you could help me financially until I get a full-time job. Then we can work out a
payback schedule and a budget for me.
Mother (Thinking about how to respond to her son) : I do realize that graduation cost more
than we thought it would. And I’ve been surprised at how few jobs there are. But it’s also
true that I didn’t budget any extra money, and my hours at the hospital have been cut back
some. I don’t know what to do. He’s my son and I know he needs help, but on the other
hand, I think he needs to take whatever job he can find right away, even if he changes later.
I would have to borrow the money to pay for all those extra expenses. But I guess I should.
He needs the help.
Mother: I do know that everything costs more than both of us thought it would. I want to
help you out, of course. You may not know that my hours have been cut and we are on a
very tight budget here at home. Would you be willing to take whatever job you can find for
now, and then switch when you find something better? I think we can work this out.
Jon: I didn’t know your hours were cut permanently. I thought it was temporary. Sure, I’ll
take what I can get. When I find something we can work out a budget.
(continued)
Application 1.2.1 Jon and His Mother
TAKE II
The conversation might have gone something like this.
Jon (After the same reflection as above): You’re going to have to pay for my car insurance
this summer. There is no way I can pay for it after graduation. I have to have a car to work.
Mom: Well guess what? My hours at the hospital are permanently cut and I cannot afford
one more expense. You’ll have to take the bus or walk when you find a job. There’s just no
give in my budget. I think you could have avoided some of those expenses anyway. Did you
have to go on that trip?
Jon: Of course I had to. It was the senior trip. Fine, then. I’ll get by somehow.
Analysis: Discuss with your small group these questions:
Look at the second conversation first. What went wrong from the very beginning? What
tone does each use in the negative example?
What kinds of ineffective communication are both Jon and his Mom using? How do they
feel at this point?
Now look back at the first conversation. What was required for Jon and his Mom to have
such a mature conversation? Can you imagine being in a conversation like this with one
of your parents or adult children? Why or why not?
The mother and son are engaged in interpersonal conflict. Their conflict results from
their particular communication choices. The son asks for extra help; the mother makes a
decision first (in both examples) rather than asking questions. The next few interactions
may well escalate toward damage of their ongoing relationship. The son may be uncertain
how he will look for work if he can’t drive. He may want to save money he was given for
graduation for other purposes. Yet he also wants his mother’s recognition of him as an adult,
and he wants to be seen as responsible. The mother wants, presumably, to help her son find
work, to teach him to manage money, and to preserve a give-and-take relationship between
them. She doesn’t want to alienate her son, but she doesn’t want to feel taken advantage of
Application 1.3 My Basic Approach to Conflict
Where are you on the following ratings describing your approach to conflict?
I love peace and harmony and will go to great lengths to avoid conflict.
I sometimes will willingly engage in conflict, but only if I can see no other good choice.
I like the give-and-take of a good verbal conflict and am not particularly wary of getting involved.
I enjoy constructive conflict. My adrenaline gets going and I like to see what can come of it. I
even seek out conflict at times.
I count on conflict to help clear the air, solve problems, and get us to a “different place.”
or to go against an agreement. Their individual and relational goals can only be met through
creative conflict interactions. When conflict is viewed as a problem to be solved instead of
a battle to be won or interaction to be avoided, creative solutions can be found.
In the Chinese language the character for conflict is made up of two different symbols:
one indicates danger whereas the other indicates opportunity. As you think about these
two approaches, decide whether you respond first to conflict as a dangerous, obstructive
dilemma or whether you experience conflict as a welcome opportunity for change. The I
Ching teaches that the wise person in conflict remains clearheaded, inwardly strong, and
ready to meet his or her opponent halfway (Wilhelm 1977). At the beginning of your study
of conflict, we ask you to consider the possibilities inherent in conflict. By the end of the
course, we hope you come to experience the activity as an important means of growth
rather than a failure or a negative event to be avoided at all costs.
People can change their conflict behavior by studying this book and participating
in class exercises. You will be able to understand your present conflict behavior, make
choices to engage in new behavior during conflicts, and thus act as a change agent in times
of crisis and turbulence. Your approach to conflict is not an inborn set of responses but a
developed repertoire of communication skills that are learned, refined, and practiced. You
don’t have to remain the way you have been in the past.
Preventing Destructive Conflict

Prevention of conflict presents a paradoxical task. On the one hand, we now know that
conflict is one of the normal states of human communication; on the other hand, we would
like to do what we can to prevent destructive, time-wasting, relationship-harming conflict.
We’d like to enhance the possibility of creative change and decrease the probability of
destructive conflict. To prevent means to anticipate, to forestall, to come before, to be in
readiness for an occasion, to deprive something of power, to hold or keep back, and to
deal with beforehand. Prevention implies taking advance measures against something, to
forestall something from its course. Prevention implies taking effective measures to ward
off something destructive. We’ve all used the saying, “An ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure.” How might we prevent destructive conflict?
The Rescue Crew: A Fable
Once upon a time, in a beautiful meadow close to town, a group of friends was having a picnic on a
sunny spring day. They’d brought along a kayak and a canoe for playing in the river, some softball
equipment, great food, and some music. They had several backpack tents and sleeping bags in
case they decided to stay overnight. It was spring break and all the friends were elated to be out of
classes and just hanging out. Jack and Stacey jumped in their canoe and began to explore the other
side of the river. Suddenly Stacey saw what looked like a person floating downstream. Sure enough,
it was a woman who had been battered by the river rocks and was almost dead. The group sprang
into action: someone knew CPR and revived her, someone else made temporary bandages for her
wounds, and they called the EMTs on their cell phones. Just as they were loading her into the ambu-
lance, the whole scene was repeated, with two more people needing rescue. The whole sequence
(continued)
The Rescue Crew: A Fable
continued. The friends called for help, and people responded generously. Soon an emergency tent
city was set up, people brought in food and water, medical personnel volunteered their time, and
organizers raised money, for the bodies kept coming, and the sturdy group of volunteers was over-
whelmed by the urgent needs of the wounded and drowning people. Not everyone could be saved.
After a few weeks, a construction crew had set up a more permanent shelter with emergency
medical equipment and some basic housing for the volunteers. Media crews visited to document
the extraordinary tragedy and generous helping response. Some conflicts began to develop among
the leadership; the people who had been on the original picnic claimed that they knew the most
about the situation and should be elected as leaders of the new rescue organization. Names were
suggested for the group. One evening a young man from a different town arrived to help. He
immediately began running at full speed up the river. The rescue crew yelled at him to get back and
help with the food preparation for the volunteers and victims. “Where the heck do you think you’re
going?” one of the leaders yelled. “I’m going upstream to see who’s pushing all these people in the
river. Come help me see what’s happening and get this stopped now!” the runner replied.
As the fable illustrates, there’s no reason to spend all our energy taking care of disas-
ters. We need to find out what’s causing them, and then put energy into preventing further
disasters.
Romances break up, families extend estrangements over years, and intractable con-
flicts damage people’s enjoyment of work. Violence at home, at school, and in the wider
society can be reduced by teaching people conflict resolution (Johnson and Johnson 1996).
We mention “passion,” which means to suffer with. Passionate conflict prevention involves
staying with a situation long enough to make a difference rather than avoiding. Even with
a wide repertoire of conflict resolution skills, most of us would rather prevent or avoid
conflict than have to process it. On the international scene, conflict prevention could keep
thousands or even millions of people from death or destruction. Our well-being as a globe
depends on learning to prevent devastating conflict.
When you have experienced many conflicts that actually turn out better than you
might have feared, you will become more hopeful and encouraged. We know that conflict
resolution is a set of skills that can be learned; you can improve your skills and be a force
for change in others.
Understanding Destructive Conflict

Conflicts move from episode to episode in a continually unfolding pattern of interaction
between the prime parties. The moves and interpretations of each party influence those of
the others. Nowhere can we more clearly see the interlocking effects of moves and counter-
moves than in destructive conflicts.
Conflict interaction can be productive or destructive depending on many factors,
including the context in which it occurs (Camara and Resnick 1989) and the kinds of com-
munication used. Conflict is potentially costly to all parties; these costs can exceed the
gains if the conflict is drawn out before some kind of settlement is reached. If all partici-
pants are dissatisfied with the outcomes of a conflict and think they have lost as a result
(Deutsch 2014), then the conflict is classified as destructive. In one office two large men
got into a loud, shouting and shoving match. After their boss called them into his office
and talked through the conflict with them, the two men said, “It’s over. It’s nobody else’s
business.” However, other office workers were upset. An outside facilitator was called in
to talk through the situation, including pointing out to the “fighters” that they had spread a
feeling of threat and fear throughout the office. Others were avoiding them, and as a result,
not getting their work done. A married couple carries on a quieter, but no less destructive
conflict. The husband uses ridicule when he doesn’t like something the wife does.
He might say, “Oh, great, that was our best knife and now you’ve completely ruined it
because you can’t remember how to sharpen it. Why don’t we just throw money away since
you seem incapable of taking care of what we have?” You can see that destructive conflict
can look and sound differently, and still be destructive.
Several characteristics of destructive conflict can be identified. Participants can some-
times rescue a destructive interaction, making the overall effect more positive, but if the
interaction continues to be characterized by the following descriptions, the overall result
will be a destructive, win–lose experience for all parties. Gottman (1999) refers to the fol-
lowing four communication practices as the four horsemen of the apocalypse, meaning
that when these four behaviors “ride in” to a relationship, the end is near (Figure 1.1).
The Four Horsemen

Critical Start-Up Sets the Tone for Any Conflict
The first moments of a conflict interaction—the critical start-up—can set the scene for a
constructive or a destructive conflict. In fact, in Gottman’s research (1999), the first minute
of observed conflict with married couples predicts for 96% of the couples studied whether
they will stay together or divorce. This amazing finding results primarily from the way
the conflict is entered, or engaged. Criticism makes a harsh start-up. When wives escalate
from neutral feeling to negative feeling quickly, right at the beginning, the outlook for the
marriage remains bleak. Women criticize more than men do in marital conflicts. (We’ll
get to what men do that is equally destructive!) When a conflict begins with a critical
Figure 1.1 The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
Criticizing
Defensiveness
Stonewalling
Contempt
statement, the conflict is likely to escalate quickly. Any conflict that begins with “you
always” or “you never” is likely to have a destructive effect. For instance, the following
example shows a harsh start-up:
Pamela: You are the most selfish man I know! My mother is sick, maybe terminally, and you
can’t stir yourself to drive 30 miles for her birthday. Great. Now I get to tell my Mom that I’m
married to a narcissistic jerk! Could you think of someone else for a change?
Other examples of harsh and critical start-ups:
I am still furious and we have to talk!
If you could spare me a few minutes from your busy schedule, I’d like to talk to you.
Would you just listen to me for once in your life?
You consider this a report I could send off?
You are skating on thin ice.
Here’s your date for your performance review.
Right! As though I care what you think!
You get the idea. Critical start-ups set the other person on the defensive right away.
They may also make the tone so negative that the conversation can’t be rescued.
Another critical or harsh start-up might sound like this:
Pamela: I knew you wouldn’t remember to call your friend and tell him you have to visit my
mother. I have to do all the social work around here.
Many times, one person will criticize to get the other person’s attention, to indicate
how awful she or he is feeling, to try to make the conflict important enough to resolve, or
to vent frustration or despair. However, none of these reasons, though understandable, is a
good enough reason to begin interaction with criticism. Instead, you can turn a harsh start-
up into a constructive complaint.
A Constructive Complaint
• Use an “I” statement.

• Describe the undesirable behavior.
• Use neutral, not judgmental, language.
• Ask for a specific, behavioral change.
A constructive complaint can be helpful. A destructive complaint includes blame and

the attribution that there is something wrong with the other person, not just the behavior.
The following is an example of a constructive complaint:
Pamela: I am upset that we are not going to see my Mom together. I have asked you three times
to clear your weekend so we could both go see her. Next weekend is her birthday. She is sick
and I want to see her, and I want you to come with me. I am frustrated and impatient with the
excuses you’ve given me. I hope you will come. I don’t want to have the kind of marriage where
I have to see my folks by myself. This makes me feel sad and as though I don’t have a partner. It
would mean a lot to me if you would come, and let me know very soon so I can tell Mom.
How do you change the following critical comments into constructive complaints,
ones that point the other person toward change in behavior?
A supervisor says, “You have a negative attitude. Our leadership team is looking for
people with a can-do attitude.”
Or, student to professor, “Your grading of my last paper seems really unfair. I fol-
lowed your guidelines and worked very hard.”
Or, employee to manager, “You play favorites with your shift assignments. Why am I
always stuck with holidays?”
Application 1.4 From Criticism to Constructive Complaints
In your small group, practice changing criticisms to complaints. Think of destructive criticism,
maybe that you have used, or that others have used against you, and practice brainstorming about
how to change these critical comments to legitimate complaints. Don’t be afraid to make the com-
plaints strong and assertive—they need not be soft and wishy-washy. Remember to avoid blame,
use I statements, describe instead of judging, and leave the door open for change. Practice trans-
forming criticism into descriptive complaints, while remaining honest.
Defensiveness Characterizes Destructive Conflict

When people use defensive communication, they are communicating a desire to protect
themselves against pain, fear, personal responsibility, or new information. In an emotion-
ally charged issue, if a person can listen to learn about oneself and the other, defensiveness
drops away (Paul and Paul 1987). When defensiveness predominates, many destructive
outcomes occur, such as power struggles, boredom, lack of fun and joy, chronic fighting,
emotional pain and distance, and a desire to retaliate (Paul and Paul 1983, 1987). Defen-
siveness implies that one is warding off an attack. Notice that the metaphor for conflict
that underlies the need to defend is a negative metaphor, war or attack. When you are
defensive, you might whine, deflect, attack, and further defend. The interaction can look
and sound like Ping-Pong.
Barbara: Every time I try to talk to you about my day, you launch into complaints and whining
about how bad life is for you. You never listen to me. (Notice that Barbara is in fact attacking,
criticizing, and blaming.)
Mark: If I didn’t get my two cents’ worth in, you’d talk all evening. All you ever do is com-
plain. I decided weeks ago that every time you come home with some “poor me” tale, I’ll
match you. Besides, I have a right to be heard too. You aren’t the only important one in this
family. (Mark is escalating, even though he calls it “matching” Barbara. He is also blaming
and criticizing, and not listening.)
Barbara: If things are so rotten for you in this relationship, why are you sticking around? All
I’m asking for is a little empathy, but I guess that’s beyond you. (A major escalation!)
You can easily see that neither Barbara nor Mark is the least bit interested in learn-
ing, only in attacking and defending. This interaction will undoubtedly escalate or lead to
hostile withdrawal.
Defensiveness comes from a misguided sense of righteous indignation, expressed

poorly. Another word for defensiveness might be “contrariness.” Some people seemingly
can’t help adopting a devil’s advocate or contrary point of view. For them, conversation is
a battle of wits. They enjoy the game of “batting ideas around” and are often very good at
the performance. The pursuit of mutual understanding may seem boring and unchallenging
(Yankelovich 1999, 141). Contrariness and defensiveness impede constructive conflict.
In the following complaint, Barbara and Mark do much better. Sure, this approach
takes more time and care . . . but it’s the only approach that works (Gottman 1999).
Barbara and Mark Try It Again
Barbara: I’ve been noticing something that troubles me and is making me upset. When I
come home and tell you about my day, which I look forward to, it seems that you immedi-
ately start to tell me about your day, making it sound horrible. I don’t feel heard. And I’m not
listening to you, either. Something isn’t working. I don’t like the direction we’re going, and I
don’t feel close to you.
Mark: I think you’re right. I often feel that you get all the air time. I’m afraid that if I don’t
speak up, you’ll talk all evening about your bad day. I’m not proud of this, but I really don’t
want to hear so much about your awful work situation.
Barbara: Thanks for being honest. It makes me feel less crazy. I do want to hear about you,
good and bad things. I’d like for you to let me know you hear and understand me.
I can easily imagine doing the same thing for you. I do care about you.
Mark: I haven’t liked myself very much, that’s for sure. I’ve been trying to teach you not to
complain—but I’ve been doing the same thing to you. Let’s start over.
In this example, Barbara and Mark began to create a more supportive climate instead of a
defensive climate. People in a defensive climate are touchy, irritable, quick-tempered, and
harsh.
Creating a Supportive Climate Rather Than a Defensive Climate

One of the best descriptions of defensive communication was written by Jack Gibb in
1961. It is so useful we suggest you memorize the categories. This schema will help you
moderate your own defensiveness very effectively—if you pay attention to your own lan-
guage. First, learn to recognize your own and others’ defensiveness for what it is. Then,
practice the “support side” of the following suggestions. Defensive climates—rather than
supportive climates—are created when people use the following kinds of language:
• Evaluation rather than description. Judgmental and evaluating language leads to a
defensive response in the other person. No one enjoys being “graded,” especially
as inadequate. Instead, use neutral and nonblaming language. Rather than saying,
“You are closed-minded on this . . .” say, “You really like the idea of going camping
instead of kayaking. Are you open to some other options?”
• Control rather than problem solving. When you try to control the other person,
you might insist on details, shut down communication, or simply say, “No way I’m
going to do that.” Instead, say, “We can solve this problem. I’ll listen to you; I ask
you to listen to me.” “Let’s generate several possibilities.”
• Strategy rather than spontaneity. In strategic communication, the other person feels
manipulated and managed. When you are communicating spontaneously, you are free
of deception and are communicating honestly, in a straightforward way. Rather than
saying “I’ll get back to you on that,” say, “I’m not comfortable with that idea. Let’s
keep talking.”
• Neutrality rather than empathy. No one likes to feel like a “case” or a “type.” When
a doctor says to a patient with cancer, “That’s the protocol we use in this kind of can-
cer,” the patient will feel dismissed or made into an object. Instead, the doctor could
say, “This is my best advice based on my experience and the research. What do you
think? Will this work for you?” A friend might speak neutrally, rather than empathi-
cally, when she says to her roommate, “It’s simple. We need to alternate weeks of
cleaning the room. That avoids conflict.” Alternating might be a good idea, but not
when she’s just heard her roommate talk about how overwhelmed she feels and that
cleaning the room just hasn’t been a priority.
• Superiority rather than equality. No one likes to be talked down to. If you indicate
that you are more powerful, smarter, or more experienced than the other person, you
will create defensiveness. Rather than “You’ll see that I’m right when you have more
experience,” say, “I feel strongly about this. What is your experience?” Rather than,
“You have just about let this plant die from lack of water,” say, “This plant looks dry.”
A comment based on equality assumes that the other person will know what to do.
• Certainty rather than provisionalism. Dogmatic, inflexible statements create defen-
siveness. Openness creates a supportive environment. Rather than “I am never going
to drive at Christmas again,” say, “Driving at Christmas is something I’m not want-
ing to do. I still want to see our family, but I hate being on the highway at Christmas.
Let’s talk about other options.”
Support neutralizes defensiveness. As you learn to recognize your own and others
defensiveness, you can practice support. Creating a supportive environment means you
make it possible for the other person to be heard, and thus for the other person to hear you.
Support does not mean agreement. Support means you see the other person as a worth-
while human being who deserves to be heard. Support means that you speak so the other
knows she is being respected, and support means that listening takes as much time as talk-
ing. You can disagree and still be supportive.
Stonewalling—Withdrawal from Interaction
Usually, when people are engaged in conversation, they give nonverbal cues, as well as
verbal cues, that indicate their involvement. They give eye contact, head nods, changes in
facial expression, brief vocalizations, and so on (Gottman 1999). Turn-taking is regulated
in a refined dance of interaction that shows that the other person is “there.” Stonewallers
don’t do any of this. They show in every possible way that they are not “there.” They glance
only to see what the other person is doing, then glance away. They maintain a stiff neck and
frozen facial features. They try to conceal what they are thinking and feeling. Men consis-
tently stonewall more than women. In fact, in Gottman’s study (reported in 1999), 85% of
stonewallers were men. The combination of criticism and stonewalling predicted divorce
quite easily. Most women find this kind of “I’m not here” behavior on the part of men
highly upsetting. Stonewalling is more than avoidance of conflict. It is an attempt to signal
withdrawal from communication while, in fact, still being present in the conversation, but
in a destructive way. Stonewalling also can mean a refusal to engage in a topic no matter
how the other person brings it up. You can probably imagine the frustration and fury that
accompanies stonewalling. One couple could never work out a mutual vacation because
the wife would not respond in any way to her husband’s suggestions. She would leave the
room or change the subject. Thus a form of stonewalling occurred.
A less destructive form of stonewalling might be called holding back. When
Yankelovich (1999) asked people why they were not more forthcoming in group discus-
sions, they said they had to be comfortable enough to speak, or that they wanted to see what
developed before they got involved. Men hold back in public discussions more than women
do, although women also feel reserved when trust has not been built. People hold back
when they sense hostility in a group or in the other. A good leader comments on quiet peo-
ple in a supportive way, such as, “David, I’d like to hear your thoughts on whether this new
project is a good idea.” If David holds back by saying, “I haven’t analyzed it yet,” the leader
could say, “We don’t need all the data. I respect your opinion. What’s your first take?”
Taking Down the Stone Wall People stonewall when they are afraid to be influenced or
when they are so angry they no longer wish to engage. Sometimes people stonewall when
they have lost respect for the other person. This is a toxic situation, calling for drastic mea-
sures. Here are several ways to take down the wall:
She: You aren’t responding at all to me. It’s as though you aren’t there. Please tell me what
you actually are thinking. (Note to women—when someone is stonewalling, try asking about
thoughts rather than feelings!)
He: I’m not thinking a blinking thing.
She: How can we get back into a conversation? Would you make a suggestion?
He: Just shut up.
She: That’s what you’ve done, shut up. This is not helping us solve our problem. I want you to
talk to me and listen to me. I’ll start by listening.
This approach may not work. The stonewaller may be so punishing and harsh that
nothing works for now. Still, this approach may change the conversation later.
If not, the relationship is functionally over. No one can stand being shut out forever. If
the nastiness goes on for a while, the following might help:
She: I feel hopeless and like going farther away. I hope you will let me in. This is a really bad
situation. Please tell me what you want without making me the nag or hag. I can and will listen
if I don’t feel attacked.
If he then attacks, she should stay, “Please stop. We’ll talk later.”
Contempt Contributes to Destructive Conflict

“Contempt is any statement or nonverbal behavior that puts oneself on a higher plane than
one’s partner” (Gottman 1999). Contempt often involves a nasty kind of mockery, put-
downs, hostile corrections, and nonverbal expressions of contempt. The contemptuous look
(mouth pulled over to one side) is “powerfully corrosive,” according to Gottman and our own
experience. Many times we have heard people say the right words, but with an expression
of contempt, which leads inevitably to more destructive communication. Often contempt
is accompanied by sarcasm, ridicule, and outright hostile joking. In healthy relationships,
contempt is almost never present. Contempt is never justified in a long-term, important rela-
tionship, since it functions as a powerful attack on the personhood of the other.
Softening Contempt Like stonewalling, contempt signals an emergency in a relationship.
Whether in a marriage, friendship, or work situation, contempt calls for quick, effective
action. In an architectural firm, a woman put a series of derisive, antimanagement car-
toons on the bulletin board outside her office. Some of the cartoons were similar to the
CEO’s style, and most of her co-workers saw the cartoons as a thinly veiled attack on the
older, male CEO. Unfortunately, the CEO matched contempt with contempt. He compiled
a set of teamwork slogans, sent them out in a group e-mail, ending with, “Which person
with a bulletin board might fit exactly into these sayings?” When a consultant was called
in to facilitate less destructive communication, neither person would acknowledge being
contemptuous. The consultant ended up saying, “I think both sets of messages are full of
contempt. This is taking you nowhere good. That means you two and others need to talk.
Are you willing to do this?”
If you are the victim of contempt, you may need to say something like:
“I won’t let you talk to me this way. I am being treated without respect and I can’t
respect myself if I continue.”
“Please don’t treat me with contempt. Tell me what you want/need/feel instead.”
“You are so furious that I can’t talk with you right now. I’ll try again later.” (Then leave.)
“Please notice that you are speaking to me in a way that not one other person would
tolerate. I need you to change the way you are talking to me.”
“Nothing about this conversation is working for me so I am going to stop talking for
now.” (Then disengage, no matter how hard it is to do this.)
Full-blown, continuing contempt means that intervention of some kind is needed, or
the relationship is over. Contempt can lead to abuse, and needs to be treated with great
care. Try never to meet contempt with escalated contempt of your own. Disengage and
seek counsel.
Application 1.5 Four Horsemen
Look back over the explanation of the “four horsemen.” Answer the following questions, then
discuss. This takes honest reflection. You can make a few notes before you talk with your group.
Which of the four communication modes has been used against you in harmful ways?
Which of the four do you use, and in what circumstances?
Choose an example of your own of one of the four destructive modes explained above.
Can you think of a way you could communicate more honestly and constructively?
Practice changing your communication when you are tempted to use one of the four
horsemen. Keep track of your attempts for a paper on your communication style.
More Bad Habits for Your Analysis

When parties are unable or unwilling to adapt to changing circumstances, instead following
rules “to a T” or “going by the book,” potentially constructive conflict often deteriorates.
One manager refused to discuss reprimands with employees, instead recording the inci-
dents in letters that could later be used as part of a paper trail in case an employee needed
to be fired. As a result, trust plummeted to zero in the office, and employees formed coali-
tions to protect each other from the inflexible boss. The supervisor, in addition to creating
a hostile working environment, received “pretend change” instead of genuine change in
employees’ behavior. Everyone lost as the cycle of distancing and inflexible communica-
tion intensified.
Soften Rigidity with Flexible Options People become rigid when they feel threatened
or feel afraid of losing something important. The supervisor who refused to talk with her
employees may have been afraid of the feedback she would receive. She might not know
how to bring up problems in a firm but respectful way. A peer manager could suggest dif-
ferent ways of creating change that are more likely to work than documenting behavior.
These flexible options might be:
∙ Call each employee in to discuss positive and negative performance. Ask for
feedback about how the manager can help the employee reach the joint goals that
are set.
∙ For a while, the manager could focus on describing what she likes. The employees
may not trust her at first, but focusing on positive behavior would soften the wall of
mistrust that has been built in the office.
∙ The manager could hold team meetings saying something like, “Our conditions have
changed so much that it’s clear to me that some of your jobs are changing. I would
like for us to talk about what is changing in our industry, and how we might adapt to
the new needs.”
∙ The manager could ask for a meeting with the person most likely to give helpful
feedback, an internal “consultant,” and say something like, “I’m not getting the
change I would like. I can tell people are avoiding me. Do you have some suggestions
for me that might get us working as a team again? I respect your judgment.”
Again, when something is not working, try a new approach, not more of the old
approach.
Dominance and Subordination Results in Destructive Conflict

“Authenticity and subordination are totally incompatible” (Miller 1986, 98). Dominant
groups tend to suppress conflict, minimizing and denying its existence. This works rea-
sonably well for those in power, because they can make and enforce the rules. In fact, a
measure of the dominant group’s success and security is often its ability to suppress con-
flict, to keep it hidden, unobtrusive, and unthreatening to the group’s position of power. In
a situation of unequal power, in which a myth of harmonious relationships is set forth, the
subordinate person is put in charge of maintaining that harmony. Then any recognition of
differences is treated as insubordination (Jordan 1990; Miller 1986). We will discuss how
to deal with unequal power in Chapter 4.
More Examples of Destructive Habits

You can recognize other bad habits in the following list. Throughout the book, we will give
suggestions for avoiding bad habits. For now, note which bad habits already discussed,
and the ones following, you might resort to when you are frustrated or upset. Richo (2002)
discusses in How to Be An Adult in Relationships (147–8) ways to recognize when you are
being a “drama king or queen” rather than acting as an adult (one could be any age for this
concept to apply).
∙ We use invective to dump our feelings on one another or engage in theatrical/histri-
onic displays meant to manipulate, intimidate, or distance the other.
∙ We explode, act violently, retaliate, or withdraw sullenly.
∙ One of us makes a unilateral or secret decision.
∙ The issue remains an open wound with lingering resentment and ongoing stress.
∙ We use cutthroat tactics.
∙ We insist this problem be fixed in accord with our timing, showing no tolerance for a
time-out.
∙ We crowd the stage by bringing someone else or something else in as a distraction
(e.g., an affair, drinking).
∙ We see only in black and white.
∙ We each insist on getting our own way.
Escalatory Spirals
In the previous section we explored some of the most negative individual communication
behaviors that lead to destructive conflict. Now, we will describe patterns of destructive
conflict that require interaction.
Escalatory Spirals Pervade Destructive Conflict
Conflict often spirals out of control. What began as a careful exchange of opposing views
deteriorated into an intense, careless exchange in which strong feelings, such as anger,
revenge, despair, and fear were aroused. What happened? People who may have begun a
reasonable discussion now want to harm the other person (Baron 1984). Perception dic-
tates spirals. When one person interprets the other’s communication as negative, threat-
ening, interfering, and intense, a negative conflict spiral escalates rapidly. Such a spiral
becomes extremely difficult to interrupt or change (Weingart et al. 2015). Once one person
perceives that the other’s emotional intensity is escalating, the negative spiral has begun.
Figure 1.2 illustrates the runaway dynamics that occur in a typical destructive conflict
spiral. In this example, two roommates begin with a misunderstanding that accelerates
each time they communicate. Brad begins complaining about Steve’s messiness. At each
crossover point in the spiral, thoughts and actions might occur as they do in this version of
an actual conflict:
1. Brad says to Steve, “Hey, why don’t you do your part? This place is a hole.”
2. Steve says, “Out of my face, dude!” (He then leaves the apartment.)
Figure 1.2 Conflict Spiral

Destruction of
Brad9 friendship
Brad7
Brad5
Steve10
Brad3
Steve8
Steve6
Brad1
Good Steve4
friends
Steve2
3. Brad, still upset about the messy apartment, finds Steve’s ex-girlfriend and says,
“Has Steve always been such a slob? I can’t stand living with him.”
4. Steve, hearing from his ex-girlfriend that “even Brad knows that you are a slob,”
decides that he will get back at Brad for his meanness. So Steve begins deliberately
messing up the bathroom, knowing that it will drive Brad crazy.
5. Brad comes home, sees the messy bathroom, and puts an ad in the campus newspaper
that says, “If anyone sees Steve K., tell him to clean up his half of the apartment—it’s
a pigsty.”
6. Steve, angered at the public announcement, comes home late one night and, while
Brad is sleeping, lets the air out of Brad’s tires.
7. Brad runs into a mutual friend the next day and hears that Steve is the one who let the air
out of his tires. So Brad goes home, moves all of Steve’s belongings into the hall, changes
the locks on the door, and puts a sign on Steve’s belongings that says, “Help yourself.”
Brad and Steve’s conflict escalated without much direct communication between the
two of them—they let their actions speak instead of words. A destructive conflict in an
intimate relationship, between spouses, for example, may be characterized by such fea-
tures, in addition to the bad habits listed previously. Each person uses bad habits to damage
the other person where it hurts most, emotionally. For instance, a woman may ridicule her
husband for making less money than she does when she knows he is extremely sensitive
to this issue. She may be trying to bring up an important topic, but the attempt will surely
fail. The injunction “don’t fight unless you mean it” is ignored in a destructive conflict,
and the interlocking, damaging moves occur repeatedly. In a destructive conflict, one party
unilaterally attempts to change the structure of the relationship, restrict the choices of the
other, and gain advantage over the other.
Figure 1.3 The Spiral of Negativity

Perception o
f oth
sh ip e r
at ion
el
o fr
n
t io
ep
Pe rc
Be
ior
ha
hav
Be
vio
vior
ip
r
sh
ion
Beha
tion of r elat
Behavior
nship
cep
er
Per
atio
P
ce
l
f re
tio
p
Pe
no
f other
no
rce
io
pt
pt
e
io
of rc
n
ot Pe
he
r
Probably the best index of destructive conflict is that one or both of the parties have
a strong desire to “get even” or damage the other party. When you hear a friend say, “I’ll
get her back! She undermined me once, but never again!” you are overhearing one side of a
destructive conflict in action. “If the conflict is responded to in destructive ways . . . it starts
sequences of episodes that detract from relational quality” (Wilmot 1995, 95). The conflict
continues unabated, feeds upon itself, and becomes a spiral of negativity (Figure 1.3). The
three parts—the behaviors, the perceptions of others, and the perceptions of the relationship—
mutually reinforce each other. As behavior becomes more destructive and one’s view of the
other and the relationship go downhill, each person continues to perceive himself or herself as
free from blame. (i.e., “It is all his or her fault).” In an organization, for example, one person
on the verge of firing an employee said, “Well, I’m a good supervisor. He just won’t cooperate.
It is all his fault. Besides, he will probably be better off if I fire him.”
Escalatory spirals bring about a cascade of negative effects. Self-perpetuating dynam-
ics create the (1) behaviors, (2) perceptions of the other, and (3) perceptions of the relation-
ship, which continue to disintegrate (with each party viewing oneself as not responsible for
any of it). Beck (1988) aptly summarizes the later stages of the process:
When a relationship goes downhill, the partners begin to see each other through a negative
frame, which consists of a composite of disagreeable traits (“He’s mean and manipulative”;
“She’s irresponsible”) that each attributes to the other. These unfavorable attributions color
how the offended mate sees the partner; negative actions are exaggerated and neutral actions
are seen as negative. Even positive acts may be given a negative coloring. (207)
Declines happen in all kinds of relationships—between social groups, between marriage
partners, between roommates, within the work setting, and within families.
Avoidance Spirals
Avoidance Patterns Reduce the Chance for Productive Conflict
Escalatory spirals can be called “fight” patterns. Conflict parties also manifest “flight”
patterns of avoidance of the conflict. For now, be aware that patterns of avoidance also cre-
ate and reflect destructive conflict interaction. One form of avoidance is an active attempt
to lessen dependence on each other. By making such an attempt, each party reduces the
influence of the other on his or her choices. Both parties then become less invested in
the relationship. Many long-term marriages, for example, become devitalized, with the
spouses expecting less and less of one another. This is often the natural consequence of
lessened interaction. Spouses who are prevented from enriching daily interaction by the
pressure of jobs, children, and other stresses become estranged. The barrier between them
becomes harder and harder to breach. Avoidance spirals occur in other contexts as well,
such as with the employee who declares, “I don’t care if they fire me—who needs them
anyway?” The basic dynamics of all avoidance spirals are as follows:
• Less direct interaction

• Active avoidance of the other party
• Reduction of dependence
• Harboring of resentment or disappointment
• Complaining to third persons about the other party
Whereas escalatory spirals are characterized by overt and implied expression of the
conflict, avoidance spirals demonstrate covert expression. At least one of the parties tries
to impact the other through lack of cooperation. If you become irritated at your small
group, your late report may get everyone into difficulty with the professor. Any form of
withholding from someone who depends on you can bring negative consequences to the
other. When you withdraw, the other party does not know what you want or are thinking.
Often the other will say something like, “What is wrong?” Then you say, “Nothing,” cover-
ing up anger, resentment, or disappointment.
Oddly enough, sometimes people want destructive conflict in their relationships
(Neimeyer and Neimeyer 1985). Although escalatory and avoidance spirals may appear
to be totally negative to outsiders, the conflict party may be getting something valuable
from these spirals. For example, if John can stay locked in an overt struggle with Bill, the
impasse may give John a sense of power and self-esteem: “I refuse to cooperate because I’ll
never forgive him for what he did. He was a sneak.” Or, if you are in an avoidance spiral,
then complaining about your supervisor, employee, spouse, or friend to others builds close-
ness between you and your listener. For example, a husband and wife may both complain
about the other to the children, each thereby building a close bond with the child who is the
chosen listener. One can get locked into a position of complaining bitterly about a spouse
or co-worker but not take any steps to alter the relationship directly. In short, people may
be invested in not moving past the destructive conflict.
The Attack/Withdraw Pattern

This pattern is a destructive dance usually manifested in intimate relationships. It destroys
chances for productive interaction. In the pursue/flee pattern, described in detail in
Lerner’s Dance of Intimacy (1989), one partner specializes in initiating conversation,
commenting on the lack of closeness between the partners, bringing up feelings and issues
to get them resolved, and drawing the other partner out by asking questions such as “You
seem preoccupied—what’s going on?” or “We don’t seem close these last few weeks. Is
something bothering you?” Then the “dance” of distance is engaged in as the other partner
minimizes the problems, denies anything is wrong, promises to do better, comments on
content problems only, avoids discussion of any relationship issues, or gives excuses such
as “I’ve just been really busy,” or “I’m distracted by what’s going on at work,” or “I’m
just premenstrual. Don’t take it personally.” The conflict remains frustratingly unresolved
because each partner specializes in a role that is so prescribed, whether initiating or flee-
ing, that the issues remain unexplored. These dynamics will be addressed in Chapter 5,
but for now, as you begin to watch and analyze conflicts around you, pay attention to who
initiates and who withdraws, or flees. As we discussed earlier, attacking leads to with-
drawal, and withdrawal often leads to more attacks as the person who is avoided feels
frustrated, choosing an attack as the only way to gain the other’s attention (Reznik et al.
2015). A negative spiral results. One way to arrest this pattern is to make a comment about
communication, such as “I notice that I’m the one who brings up problems, and you feel
defensive. We need to do something different.” The one who flees can own up to the dis-
comfort caused by the pursuit by saying, for example, “I feel pounced on, especially about
my feelings. I need time to sort out what’s going on. I will talk to you; I just need to do it at
a time when I’m not exhausted or frazzled.”
Gottman (1994) discovered that the avoidance sequence described as attack/withdraw,
or pursue/retreat, leads to relationship breakup because of its negative impact. Avoid-
ance, or even worse, stonewalling, comes after some preliminary episodes. As we have
discussed, for the marriages Gottman studied, the destructive sequence consisted of criti-
cizing, defensiveness, stonewalling, and contempt. Thus, avoidance can be viewed within
the overall spiral of conflict as leading to eventual dissolution of a relationship. One
other feature of Gottman’s work is noteworthy: If avoidance is accepted by both partners
(“conflict-avoiding couples”), it can stabilize the marriage. Avoidance, coupled with dis-
satisfaction and disagreement (one person pursuing and the other fleeing), is damaging.
Reciprocity of Negative Emotion Can Lead to Destructive Conflict

Three kinds of reciprocity can be identified in communication: (1) low-intensity emotion
is responded to in kind (e.g., anger is met with anger), (2) high-intensity emotion is met in
kind (e.g., fury is met with fury), and (3) low-intensity emotion is met with high-intensity
emotion (e.g., hurt is met with rage). Gottman and Krokoff (1989) found that the escalation
of negativity by husbands predicted divorce. When men refused to accept influence from
their women partners, the relationship went downhill. It’s important to understand just
what is being reported by this finding. Gottman and his researchers are not saying that men
should do what women want, but that meeting negative emotion with more negative emo-
tion predicts relationship breakup. Why would this be? Escalating negativity on the part of
men can lead to violent interactions. A team of researchers watched videotapes of violent
men interacting with their partners. They likened the experience to that of baseball play-
ers at automatic pitching machines who bat back every pitch. These violent men refused
to be influenced by anything their wives had to say. Small requests or complaints were
“batted back” regardless of their merit. In a companion study of 130 nonviolent couples,
80% of the men who did not accept any influence from their wives ended up divorced!
Most women accepted influence from their husbands, and that acceptance did not pre-
dict anything about their marriages (Gottman 1994). The violent relationship is a one-way
power struggle gone wild; the escalating spiral of negativity ends in verbal or physical
violence. We will have more to say about the cycle of violence, but the important thing to
note at this point is that meeting negative emotion with more negative emotion leads to big
problems in relationships.
Retaliation Runs Rampant in Destructive Conflicts

Conflict participants destroy chances for change when they pile up grievances, hold
grudges, and wait for opportunities to retaliate. “Don’t get mad—get even!” is the watch-
word for this urge to get back at the other person. Retaliation often becomes paired with
covert avoidance. One person acts as though everything is just fine while planning a pay-
back move for later. You can probably think of many retaliatory moves that have either
been made against you or been made by you yourself. Some examples of retaliatory moves
are letters to someone’s supervisor complaining about or pointing out some indiscretion
that the employee committed; a snub such as not inviting someone to a function; a blatant
move such as emptying out a partner’s savings account, an ex-spouse refusing to agree to a
reasonable request to change a parenting agreement because the former partner refused last
time (thus setting up a revenge spiral which hurts the kids), or calling in sick at work when
your colleague and you are scheduled to give a presentation, because you are angry at your
colleague. Dirty tricks inevitably ruin the conflict atmosphere.
Humans in various cultures distinguish between the kind of aggression that can be
directed against members of their own population and that directed toward other human
groups. Stevens (1989) cites a tribe in Brazil, the Mundurucus, who distinguish between
themselves, whom they call “people,” and the rest of the world population, whom they
call “pariwat.” These in-group and out-group distinctions allow them to refer to others in
the way they would refer to huntable animals (40–41). In North American and Western
European cultures, the use of verbally demeaning and abusive communication serves a
similar function (Evans 1992). Whole groups of minorities receive demeaning descriptions,
and individuals in low-power positions in relationships suffer from pervasive demeaning,
shaming, and blaming communication.
Your Opportunities
Conflict brings both danger and opportunity, and the dangerous aspects are well known.
Changing our usual behavior, learning to “do what comes unnaturally,” requires an exami-
nation of one’s most deeply held values and spiritual beliefs. At its most effective, conflict
resolution can never be simply a set of techniques, put on or cast aside at will. You will
want to think and feel through your own principles as you study this subject.
If people are to survive and thrive, working together is not an option but a necessity.
Principles learned at the interpersonal level lead to collaborative principles at the global
level. Because of this, what you learn about collaboration within relationships will affect a
much larger plane of well-being. Breggin (1992) reminds us:
In every aspect of life . . . we need better principles for resolving conflict and promoting har-
mony within ourselves and others. We need approaches that make personal and political sense,
that connect us in a rational and caring manner to ourselves as individuals and to the world
around us, including people and nature. We need a viewpoint that helps us understand and heal
the pain of human conflict. (3)
We are connected human beings who must balance our need for personal autonomy
with our need for interdependence. We can no longer live by the myth that somewhere out
there is a place where we can be completely independent and do what we wish.
In conflict, no one set of principles will always work to keep you out of conflict alto-
gether. Yet, people do change their orientation to conflict and amaze themselves with their
ability to transcend formerly destructive situations. If enough of us are willing to weave
webs of connection with others, all our shared hopes for the world can be realized. Long-
standing stereotypes can be dissolved, mistrust can be overcome, understanding can be
achieved, people previously at odds can work together on shared objectives, new levels of
creativity can be reached, and bonds of community can be strengthened.
In order to find creative solutions, we must be willing to take our conflicts seriously.
We need to find ways to manage our worst reactions and call on our best communication.
When you improve your conflict skills, you will enrich your life.
Summary
Conflict happens. It is part and parcel of all our Destructive conflict damages the parties and
interactions—at work, with romantic partners, with their relationship. In marriages, for example, the
friends, and with our families. Why would you want four horsemen of the apocalypse destructive pattern
to study conflict? This study will help you learn is criticizing, defensiveness, stonewalling, and con-
new responses to situations that inevitably arise. tempt. Other negative patterns and individual bad
Conflict management approaches help in love rela- habits are discussed in detail. We provide specific
tionships, family interaction, and at work. Conflicts suggestions on alternatives to each one of these
are defined as skills that can be learned, based on destructive responses.
principles to contemplate. Principled skills create In addition to these destructive patterns, it is
authentic conflict resolution approaches. Emotional helpful to understand escalatory spirals and avoid-
intelligence remains a prerequisite for one’s ability ance spirals. The runaway spirals take on a life
to engage in conflict effectively. of their own and cannot be described by simply
Conflict is defined as “an expressed struggle describing individual behaviors. After describing
between at least two parties who perceive incompat- these, we suggest that you have opportunities for
ible goals, scarce resources, and interference from productive conflict management, and that these
others in achieving their goals.” opportunities will enrich your life greatly.
Key Terms
perception 2 perceived incompatible goals 8 prevention 20
interpersonal conflict 3 perceived scarce resource 8 destructive conflicts 21
intrapersonal conflict 3 power 9 four horsemen of the
intrapersonal perceptions 3 self-esteem 9 apocalypse 22
expressed struggles 5 perceived interference 10 critical start-up 22
conflict parties 5 mental health 10 defensive climates 25
interdependent 5 family of origin 10 supportive climates 25
strategic conflict 5 destructive marital conflict 11 escalatory spirals 33
mutual interests 5 conflicts at work 13 avoidance spirals 33
mutual interdependence 6 unresolved conflict 16 dance of intimacy 34
gridlocked conflict 6 emotional intelligence 16
Review Questions
1. What are the elements of a definition of inter- 13. What is the relationship between perceived
personal communication? incompatible goals, scarce resources, and
2. Explain how conflict management depends on interference?
a study of interpersonal communication. 14. How can you create a supportive climate?
3. Give reasons why we need to study conflict. 15. What are intangible resources?
4. In what contexts do conflicts arise? 16. What characterizes destructive conflict?
5. Define conflict. 17. What is a “good complaint”?
6. What are common responses to abuse in one’s 18. What are some common “bad habits” in con-
history? flict resolution, and how can they be changed
7. What are the interpersonal expressions of into better habits?
conflict? 19. What is a spiral?
8. What is the purpose of dialogue? 20. What is an escalatory spiral?
9. What do we depend on others for? 21. What is an avoidance spiral?
10. What do they depend on us for? 22. Give an optimistic answer to “conflict always
11. What is the role of perception in conflict? happens; therefore. . . .”
12. How do power and self-esteem function in
conflict?
Chapter 2
Perspectives on Conflict
Your Personal History
Application 2.1 A Conflict Memory
Think of the most disturbing conflict you have experienced in the past half-year or so. What was your
emotional response to this conflict? How does that compare to your usual response to conflicts?
Do you generally like to get everything out in the open, even if such an effort creates tension and
strong feelings? Or do you usually seek peace, harmony, and reduction of strong emotions? In small
groups, listen to others’ responses to these questions. Report back to the class how you are differ-
ent from one another. The purpose of this activity is to notice the differences we bring to conflict.
Keep these recent interactions in mind as you read this chapter, reflecting on your own
perceptions and experience of conflict.
In your family of origin you may have learned that to “blow up” was a normal, natural
way for people to show they cared about each other. Perhaps your family was quiet, calm,
and restrained. Fighting, if it happened at all, went on behind closed doors. Maybe you
were punished for raising your voice, physically hurt for talking honestly to an adult, or
told to keep your opinions to yourself. You may have been taught not to dwell on prob-
lems but to just move on. Or, maybe you experienced, as author Joyce did, hours of sitting
around the family dinner table, catching up on the events of the day, talking over what was
happening, and being asked we felt and thought. If so, you might bring a perspective to
conflict that assumes, “we can work this out.” Maybe you learned, as author Bill did, that
conflict was not talked about and that “actions spoke more loudly than words.” You may
have been taught not to dwell on conflict but just to move.
Very early attachment styles, known as secure attachment or insecure attachment to
parents, affect conflict resolution abilities 20 or so years later. Securely attached infants
and children use their caregivers as a source of comfort in stressful situations. Insecurely
attached infants don’t use and can’t rely on their caregivers to provide comfort. In one
study (Simpson, Collins, and Salvatore 2011), children were videotaped at age 2, then
ages 6 through 8 doing stressful tasks with their mother. At age 16 they completed inter-
views about the nature of their relationships with friends, how secure the friendships
were, and how they resolved conflict. When they were 20 to 21 years old, they came to
a lab with their romantic partners and completed a conflict resolution task and a conflict
recovery task. At age 23, they were assessed to see if they were still dating the same
romantic partners.
Subjects with an insecure attachment with their mothers at 12 months expressed more
negative emotions when trying to resolve major relationship conflicts with their partners at
age 21 or 22 (Simpson, Collins, Tran, and Haydon 2007). This effect, however, is offset by the
good news. Those students who had good social skills in grade school and trusting relation-
ships with friends at age 16 reduced the negative emotions experienced later with romantic
partners. The “pathway” of good social relationships helps people recover from early nega-
tive experiences (Simpson et al. 2011). Working models of past relationships tend to carry
forward in new relationships (Carson, Carson, Gil, and Baucom 2004). Not surprisingly, if
both people were securely attached, their relationships were more positive. Further, another
“pathway” to success emerged—one partner can help buffer the early life experiences of
another (Salvatore et al. 2011). This means if one partner was fortunate enough to experience
secure attachment, that person can help the other partner learn to trust and count on others.
You may be thinking, “This is all well and good, but I don’t go around with a social
science questionnaire before I decide to date someone.” Of course not. The skills you will
learn in this class will help transform you and assist others as well. This task takes practice,
but over the years we have seen many students change from an automatic, reactive way
of dealing with conflict, to a thoughtful, skilled approach. This helps you and everyone
around you—romantic partners, colleagues, friends, and children.
More Reflections on Your Specific History

Personal and workplace history has taught you either to jump right into conflict or to
strenuously attempt to reduce or avoid it. For most of us, the choice to avoid or confront a
conflict is difficult. We all weigh the costs and benefits of bringing up something that may
well be awkward, unpleasant, or frightening. We make choices every day about what con-
versations to avoid or initiate. We struggle about these choices, knowing that if we avoid a
tough topic we might feel taken advantage of and experience resentment. If we confront a
problem, we might make matters worse.
We hope you come to terms with your own life’s learning—what to keep, what to
challenge, what to change, and what to discard because it no longer fits your needs. Think
also about your role in your family of origin, friendships, or romantic relationships in the
workplace or in class. Do you want to change your usual role? Do you need to learn more
about getting along rather than automatically challenging authority? Maybe you want to
learn to speak up in your own clearly heard, authentic voice if you are usually silent or have
been silenced by others.
Conflict can be either bad or good. As we noted in Chapter 1, conflict presents danger
and opportunity. Whether conflicts seem worth it, or “good,” depends on their frequency,
the way the conflict takes place, and especially, the quality of the relationship where the
conflict arises. Almost everything about the “was it worth it?” question depends on the
relationship. Constructive conflicts in supportive relationships lead to beneficial outcomes
(if the conflicts are not too frequent), while coercive, destructive conflicts in unsupportive
relationships lead to negative and unpleasant outcomes (Laursen and Hafen 2010). Think
about the possibilities you might want to explore in conflict resolution. You can make
a relationship more supportive, decreasing the frequency of conflicts by asking, “Is this
worth it?” and you can learn to participate in conflict responsibly. All these skills can be
learned if you want to learn them.
Which of the following descriptions best describes your background systems?

(1) avoidant, in which members avoided most conflict; (2) collaborative, in which mem-
bers used cooperation and collaboration; or (3) aggressive/coercive, in which members
engaged in overt yelling, calling of names, blaming, scapegoating, and similar aggressive
moves. While there is an artificial nature to these distinctions (e.g., some people will avoid,
then be aggressive, then avoid again), over time distinctive “rules” for handling conflict
emerge. Here are some of them:
Avoidant Systems
∙ Conflict doesn’t exist, and if it does, don’t recognize it.
∙ If there is a conflict, figure out what to do about it on your own.
∙ Don’t tell anyone else if there is a struggle.
∙ Walk away if something starts to feel uncomfortable or threatening.
∙ Don’t ever raise your voice.
∙ Snide comments are ignored, even though resentment builds.
∙ Sulking and the silent treatment are necessary strategies.
∙ If someone has a concern, don’t respond to it.
∙ Don’t express strong feelings.
Collaborative Systems
∙ Have meetings or mealtime talks to discuss issues.
∙ Use good listening skills when someone has a concern.
∙ Deal with people directly.
∙ Say openly what you are feeling.
∙ Help is offered in resolving children’s conflicts.
∙ Regular interaction is important.
∙ Dirty tricks such as sulking are not allowed.
∙ Parents encourage and model respective communication.
∙ Strong feelings are seen as normal and are allowed.
Aggressive/Coercive Systems
∙ Survival of the strongest describes the general climate.
∙ Be brutally honest regardless of the impact.
∙ Show your emotions strongly even if that hurts someone.
∙ Establish your position early.
∙ Have an audience present when you engage someone.
∙ Don’t back down—hold your ground no matter what.
∙ If someone attacks you have to fight back.
∙ People who don’t engage are weak.
Notice how different the three lists are from one another. If you grew up in an avoidant
family and your roommate grew up in an aggressive family, it would not be too surprising
if a conflict between the two of you is difficult to resolve—each of you would break the
rules of interaction the other expected you to follow. So our personal history in our families
of origin will have a big impact on what we choose to do when conflict starts to rumble
below the surface in our relationships.
Application 2.2 Call It the Way You See It
Write for 5 to 10 minutes on the way your family, past or present, handled conflict. See if you fit,
roughly, into one of the three background systems described in the text. Put your own label on the
system you describe. For instance, you might call your system “hit and run,” “wheedle and plead,”
“get your licks in first,” “whatever,” “let’s get this done so we can do something fun,” “leave me
out of this,” “friendly food fight,” or “let me know when it’s over.” Discuss your reflections with
one classmate.
One family exemplifies the way conflict approaches may change over time. Karen
and Len are parents of Rachel, who suffered a serious head injury while riding a horse
when she was 14. Until that time, the parents seldom raised their voices and life at home
was fairly peaceful. Since Rachel’s accident, Mom feels stress because of numerous medi-
cal appointments and very little time to get her work completed at the family business
and at home. Len has decided that Rachel should help out more; he has begun yelling
at Rachel to “pitch in and do something to help your mother,” while Karen yells back,
“You expect too much. She’s only 14 and she’s doing the best she can.” Rachel alternates
between placating her father by working hard, then disappearing to avoid the yelling. The
family could now be described as aggressive, but this approach has developed recently
because of stressors.
Your personal history also includes all interactions with others up to the present. What
you experienced as a preschooler, in school, with friends on the playground, and in adult
exchanges influences your expectations. Some of us have experiences of working through
difficulties with others thus, we willingly engage in what might prove to be a difficult talk.
Others of us expect (and thus receive) constant tension, turbulence, and strife. These peo-
ple are more likely than others to react to daily challenges with self-criticism and criticism
of others, blame, negativity, defensiveness, irritability, or selfishness (Heitler 1990). These
approaches invite a reciprocal response. Think about your current beliefs and expectations
about human interaction. Are you primarily hopeful and optimistic, or cynical and pessi-
mistic? Do you ruminate and take conflict personally? Many people who brood over imag-
ined conflicts think they will be more aversive than the experience actually turns out to be
(Wallenfeltz and Hample 2010). Reflecting on constructive options is not the same thing as
brooding, which usually turns out badly.
If you grew up in a family in which verbal, physical, or sexual abuse was part of the
environment, you definitely will have very strong reactions to conflict. You may be very
watchful, careful to smooth over any signs of discomfort. You may have learned to take
the abuse to protect others in the family. You may feel guilt at the inevitable failure of that
strategy. Maybe you waited until you were old enough and then left, to go to work, get
married, or go to college, the armed forces, or a friend’s apartment. Perhaps you learned to
escape the immediate violence, either physically or by numbing out, not caring, thinking
of something else, or forgetting the conflict. Tragically, teens who witness intimate partner
violence and experience harsh parenting are more likely to instigate partner violence while
dating (Jouriles et al. 2012). Children who witness intimate partner violence (IPV), not
surprisingly, are likely to develop symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. Additionally,
those child witnesses initiate aggression, including violence, more often later in their lives
than children who did not have to suffer such witness-violence (Panahon 2015).
Alyssa, who grew up with ongoing verbal and physical violence, learned to take her
horse out for all-day rambles. She would come back after dinner and busy herself with
grooming her horse and cleaning the stalls. Then she would grab a snack when no one was
looking and take it to her room. Josh, now 25, started to use drugs at 11, which enabled
him to tune out mentally while the yelling and hitting was going on. Some kids hung out
at friends’ houses until they absolutely had to go home. Children of violent homes have
developed many strategies for dealing with their dangerous backgrounds. Some victims of
violence learn to use violence in a “first strike capability” mode. They intend never again
to be taken by surprise.
Application 2.3 My History with Violence
If you have experienced violence directly or indirectly in your life, these experiences will inevitably
affect how you respond to conflict. Answer these questions in your own journal, notebook, or with
a small group. What influence, if any, does violence have on your conflict responses? What experi-
ences have you had with violence, whether verbal, physical, or sexual? If you have not experienced
violence directly, what violent experiences of others have affected you?
If you have experienced or instigated violence, you are a perfect student for this
class. Counseling will undoubtedly help you interpret what you have experienced. There
you will learn to identify your trauma-related emotions and over time, make positive
choices about how to manage internalized responses to trauma. In a recent women’s
group, participants wrote and spoke about how they benefitted from not only counseling
but additional approaches to cooling the fires of trauma, such as yoga, tai chi, medi-
tation, art therapy, and expressive writing. Nationwide, male and female veterans are
learning to use these approaches to help them deal with war-related violence, as well
as family and partner violence, which tragically rises after veterans are immersed in the
unbearable violence of war (www.redwillowlearning.org 2016). Once you are able to
work with your internal traumatic responses, you will be able to continue to learn con-
flict resolution skills by using the skills in this book and class. Please seek help if you
find yourself unable to cope with traumatic responses. You are most certainly not alone
in this struggle.
Your current living situation certainly influences your methods of handling con-
flict. If you are with people with whom you feel safe and supported, you can experi-
ment with new styles. If not, you will experience less freedom, possibly relying on what
you already know how to do. Similarly, some work situations encourage constructive
(or destructive) conflict, whereas others reward people for silence and withdrawal. All
of these aspects of personal history feed into our expectations and actions when we are
in conflict situations.
Application 2.4 My Influences
List the 10 most important influences on your personal response to conflict, in order of importance.
Keep this list for later discussion or writing on “My Personal Style of Conflict.”
We encourage you to understand yourself and your history while you are learning
to change conflicts and gain confidence in your new repertoire of interpersonal con-
flict skills.
Your Worldview Affects How You Think

and Feel About Conflict
One’s worldview shapes conflict resolution. A telling example, reported by Goldberg
(2009), helps us think about the crucial function of understanding worldviews. A Native
American tribe had been embroiled for years with the federal government over the issue of
permanent residence on their traditional land. Over time, they spent much of their time
arguing about the right to build permanent housing. When the mediator working with the
tribe and the government asked tribal leaders why they wanted permanent homes, she was
surprised to hear that they did not want permanent housing. Instead, they wanted the right
to migrate to the mountains in the hot season, using temporary housing during the winter.
The government only understood “permanent housing” as a persuasive argument, because
their worldview assumed that “legal right to reside” meant “permanent housing.” The tribe
had adapted what they really wanted, a legal right to use their land, to accommodate to a
stranger worldview.
Worldview can be defined as “the cognitive, ethical, and perceptual frames of an indi-
vidual” (Goldberg 2009, 407). One’s worldview is made up of the following components:
∙ A view of what is real and important in the universe
∙ A view of how people and objects are supposed to relate to each other
∙ A view of what part of the universe is more valuable than another
∙ A view about how you know what you know (epistemology) (adapted from Nudler
1993, 4)
∙ A view about how people should act (ethical worldview) (Blechman, Crocker,
Docherty, and Garon 1998)
Worldviews are evidenced by how people tell the story of a conflict. Narratives, or the
way people tell their stories, reveal the views of the universe and how people should act.
In addition, metaphors used by people tell how they experience conflict and how impor-
tant beliefs are connected (Goldberg 2009). Two examples will give you some idea about
how narratives of conflict work. In a government organization, a Hispanic employee, a
woman close to retirement, was given a poor performance review. She explained that her
mother had cancer and that she was her primary caregiver, while at the same time, her son
had gotten in trouble with the law and was on probation to his mother’s house. At work
Consuela took frequent phone calls, often missed work, and asked peers to explain technical
procedures relating to budget analysis many different times. Finally, her peers became fed
up, went to their manager, Keith, who began a detailed documentation of Consuela’s work-
place problems so he could create a “paper trail” and fire her. Consuela told her assigned
employee assistance counselor that she was concerned about her own cognitive ability, her
stress level, and her work–life balance. Keith told the counselor that he thought Consuela
was taking advantage of a humane policy in the agency, was relying on her peers to give
her information that she should have, and that she showed no motivation for her work.
Clearly, Keith and Consuela, through their stories, experienced a clash of worldviews.
Consuela valued family needs and work–life balance. She assumed that co-workers were
glad to help out in a stressful time, as they had done in the past. Keith’s worldview put per-
formance first. He expected family needs to be taken care of at times other than work, and
he expected individuals to know their own jobs without needing to consult with peers about
required information. Keith and Consuela’s worldview depended partly, but not entirely, on
cultural assumptions. Thus, Consuela thought she might be “going crazy,” while Keith
thought she “lacked a work ethic.” In this particular instance, Keith, being the manager,
prevailed, ultimately firing Consuela.
Your worldview might lead you to assume that conflict is generally a negative
experience.
Negative Views of Conflict

Prior to a training session to be held for a large corporation, a revealing dialogue took
place. The agreed-upon topic was “Conflict on the Job: Making It Work Productively.”
Three days before the training was to take place, a worried manager called. He said the
proposed topic “certainly sounded interesting,” and he was “sure everyone needed help
in the area,” but he wondered if the leader would take a more “positive” approach to the
subject. He urged a title change to “Better Communication in Business,” and explained
that his company didn’t really have “conflicts,” just problems in communicating. He felt
conflict was such a negative subject that spending concentrated time on it might make
matters worse. A participant in a course called “Managing Conflicts Productively” came
to the course because she had never seen a productive conflict—all the conflicts she had
witnessed were destructive. Further, her statement suggested that a helpful conflict prob-
ably did not exist. Their worldviews assume a negative perspective on conflict.
Several well-known cultural clichés present a fairly clear picture of how many of us
were taught to think about conflict. Parents may tell their children, “If you can’t say any-
thing nice, don’t say anything at all;” “Pick on somebody your own size;” “Don’t hit girls;”
“Don’t rock the boat;” “Children should be seen and not heard;” “Act your age!” (which
means act my age, not yours); “Be a man, fight back;” and “Sticks and stones may break my
bones, but words will never hurt me!” All of these sayings give a bit of philosophy about
conflict, regarding with whom to fight, permissible conflict behavior, when to engage in
conflict, and the power of words in conflict behavior. All of the sayings make assumptions
that are not helpful to persons who want to learn to carry out productive conflict behavior.
If you were asked to list the words that come to mind when you hear the word “conflict,”
what would you list? People commonly give the following responses:
destruction anxiety threat
anger tension heartache
disagreement alienation pain
hostility violence hopelessness
war competition stress
Many people view conflict as an activity that is almost completely negative and has
no redeeming qualities. Some take the attitude that “what the world needs now is good
communication,” that if people could just understand each other, they wouldn’t have to
experience conflicts. While there is an increasing awareness of the potentially positive fea-
tures of conflict when done skillfully, many widely accepted assumptions continue to work
against a positive view of conflict. Some of the most common negative views of conflict
are presented here.
1. Harmony is normal and conflict is abnormal. Observation of people in relationships
shows that conflict is not a temporary aberration. It alternates with harmony in an
ebb and flow pattern. But common expressions, such as “I’m glad things are back
to normal around here” or “Let’s get back on track,” express the assumption that
conflict is not the norm.
2. Conflict constitutes a breakdown of communication. Designating conflict as a break-
down assumes that communication itself does not occur, but communication always
occurs in an interpersonal conflict. Often more communication makes the conflict
worse. The recipe “add communication into the breakdown” doesn’t work out well.
“Breakdown,” you will notice, assumes that people are like machines, a doubtful
worldview.
3. Communication and disagreements are the same thing. Often we mistakenly assume
that “we aren’t having a conflict; we are just disagreeing.” Sometimes this is true.
As we described in Chapter 1, conflicts are more serious than disagreements. The
attempt to label a real conflict “a disagreement” may be an ineffective strategy to
minimize the conflict.
4. Conflict is a result of personal pathology. Conflict is often described as “sick,” and
conflict participants may be labeled as “neurotic,” “hostile,” “whining,” “paranoid,”
“egomaniacs,” “antisocial,” “dependent” or “codependent,” or “enabling.” Labels
offer no substitute for a careful analysis of the elements of the conflict. Conflict
results more often from a lack of appropriate personal power and too little self-
esteem than from someone with a sick personality. In studying conflict, people’s
behaviors should be described, not their personalities. Sometimes people are so
stuck in a destructive pattern that they cannot change and they cannot participate in
collaboration. But the process of conflict itself should not be viewed as pathological.
People engage in conflict for understandable reasons. If someone is “rigid,” then he
or she may have too much or too little power. If someone is “defensive,” then he or
she may be under attack or expect to be threatened.
5. Conflict should never be escalated. Sometimes the most productive choice is to tem-
porarily make the conflict larger so it can be seen, dealt with, and given importance.
Sometimes an escalation is unavoidable and cannot be suppressed without relation-
ship damage (resentment, silent hostility, despair, hopelessness, and private decisions
to leave). Conflict skills include learning to make enough noise to be heard and to
make conflict big enough to be seen. People of lower power band together to con-
front higher-power people, sometimes so justice will be served. Sometimes people
with higher power take a stand to make a conflict larger because they believe it is the
right thing to do.
6. Conflict interaction should be polite and orderly. Overly nice communication of any
kind ensures a lack of authentic interchange. Productive conflict management often
sounds chaotic and confusing. Private arguments, especially, seldom conform to
public standards of reasonableness, consistency, or relevance in argumentation. With
intensity, communication becomes less strategic and rational and more emotionally
expressive and personal. A good conflict is not necessarily a nice conflict, although
the more people use productive communication, the more likely that the conflict will
both solve problems and help the relationship go forward.
7. Anger is the only emotion in conflict interaction. Another misconception is that
the primary emotion associated with conflict is anger, or hostility. Instead, many
emotions accompany conflict. Many of us are familiar with the heated, angry, gut-
wrenching feelings accompanying conflict. Yet people often experience loneliness,
sadness, anxiety, disappointment, and resentment, to name only a few other feelings.
In our society, adults are not encouraged to acknowledge fears, loss, feelings of aban-
donment, and loneliness. As a result, people talk about their conflicts in terms of anger rather
than heartbreak or loss. In conflict the emotional connection is altered between people. As
the relationship changes to one of distance, the natural give-and-take that used to come eas-
ily is lost and they experience bitterness, anger, sadness, or other emotions. The loss of a
positive emotional bond remains one of the most painful experiences of humankind.
Application 2.5 Identify Your Emotions When in Conflict
What emotions are most common for you when you experience conflict? Think of four areas of con-
flict: family, roommate, romantic, and work. In each area, list your most common emotions. If there
doesn’t seem to be a set of common emotions, think of one conflict as an example in each area.
How did/do you feel? Be sure to use words of feeling, not judgment or description. We will further
explore how to work with these feelings. For now, simply identify them.
8. A correct method for resolving differences can be prescribed. Americans tend to

resolve disputes, at least in public, in one of four ways: fight, vote, litigate, or appeal
to various authorities (Stulberg 1987). These approaches assume that someone
will win and someone will lose and that all will accept the process and abide by
its outcome. In a local church whose members were trying to employ new forms
of decision making, great disagreement arose over the idea of using collaborative,
consensus-based forms of decision making. In one conflict over whether homosexual
people should be given full rights and privileges in the church, the debate at the large
public meeting centered primarily around whether it was possible to make decisions
that were binding without a vote and how to vote without automatically creating
“winners and losers.” Many appeared more threatened by the change in process than
by the possible outcome of the decision. In everyday life, subordinates subvert man-
agers, children disobey parents, and coalitions form after a vote is taken, essentially
changing the meaning of the vote. People assent with half a heart, then fight against
the agreement with all their strength. Sometimes the best method for resolving dis-
putes is not apparent, which leads to a struggle over how to struggle. Rather than
being viewed as a waste of time, conflict should be viewed as multilayered.
Positive Views of Conflict

The above set of common assumptions reflects the predominant mode of thought in the
contemporary West, at least in the dominant culture. However, many societies, including
our own, express contradictory views of conflict—sometimes it is bad, sometimes it is
good. Therefore, we may grow up with a confusing perspective on when conflict is helpful
or when it should be avoided. We learn few strategies for changing conflict situations from
harmful ones into productive ones. Children may receive confusing messages about their
conduct of conflict. Sports are all right, but violence outside a sports framework is not.
Conflicts with peers is all right if you have been stepped on and you are a boy, but talking
back to parents when they step on you is not all right. Having a conflict over a promotion is
acceptable, but openly vying for recognition is not. Competing over a girl (if you’re a boy)
is admirable, but having a conflict over a boy (if you’re a girl) is catty. And so on. Persons
in power send two different messages: (1) Fight and stand up for yourself, but (2) only
when it is acceptable (Bateson 1972). Thus, people develop mixed feelings about conflict,
and many simply learn to avoid it altogether.
Yet, there are some positive approaches to conflict. For example, would you list the
following words after hearing the word “conflict”?
exciting intimate
strengthening courageous
helpful clarifying
stimulating opportunity
growth producing enriching
creative energizing
One of the assumptions of this book is that conflict can be associated with all of these
words. Conflict does receive some positive endorsement in legal challenges and competi-
tion in business. In games, children learn that “hitting hard” and “fighting to win” are
positive virtues. Strategizing, scheming, and maximizing your gains are also necessary.
Conflict can be approached from a potentially positive perspective. Consider the following
advantages and functions of conflict:
1. Conflict is inevitable; therefore, the constructive way to approach conflict is as “a fact
of life.” Too often, people blame others for conflict, assuming, as we saw earlier, that
harmony is the norm. If you can accept conflict as inevitable, you can calm down and
use your problem-solving skills rather than expending effort in blame and avoidance.
2. Conflict serves the function of “bringing problems to the table.” In intimate relation-
ships, conflict can make clear that there are problems to be solved. Many times in
couple relationships, conflict emerges over division of labor and over the distribution
of power. When couples report high levels of problem severity, they are more likely
to divorce (Amato and Rogers 1999). One rule of thumb we have developed is, If
a conflict occurs three times it isn’t about the content. It may be about power, self-
esteem, or relationship issues, such as hurts from the past.
Don and Heather have been married for 2 years. They have a 9-month-old son. Heather
works 3 days a week out of their home, running an environmental consulting business.
Before their marriage, she worked for various nonprofit environmental groups. She is also
an artist who sells her work to environmental organizations. Don is a mechanical engineer
with a full-time job at a small firm. They reported a conflict over tasks at home. Here is a
summary of their dilemma:
Heather: Don and I have agreed that I will work 3 days a week, and on the other 2 days, take
on most, but not all, of the home responsibilities. But since our child is home some
of the day, every day, I often am doing many things at once—laundry, playing with
or caring for Nathan, answering e-mails about work, and trying to write up reports
and initiate contacts with clients. That’s all right with me, since I like to have a lot
going on, except for one problem. When I want to go out with my women friends
some evenings, after being home all day, Don gets upset if I leave household and
child-care tasks for him to do. He doesn’t understand that I can’t just neatly divide
my work into 3 days of business and 2 days of home and child care. I can’t stand
feeling stuck and controlled.
Don: I thought Heather and I had worked out a good plan. I would work full time out of
the home, and she would work three-fifths’ time at home, leaving her time to do
most of the home tasks. I don’t think she organizes very well. I resent being left
with housework when she goes out in the evenings. It’s not what we agreed. We
need to change something.
Application 2.6 Don and Heather
What problems, specifically, do Don and Heather face? What are some of the areas that could
derail them? In other words, applying the “three times” rule, what is the conflict not about? What
is the conflict more likely to be about? How could they begin to solve the problem and make their
relationship better?
3. Conflict often helps people join together and clarify their goals. Many times people
keep on doing things “the same old way” until there is a conflict. When conflict
arises, they must determine their priorities and how to use their resources. In one
organization, a group of nurses were told they must function without a nursing super-
visor. They were told by upper management to work out their own schedules and
assignments as a team. As they struggled with more work and fewer paid hours avail-
able, after a period of several months of blaming and complaining, they met together
as a team and worked out their problems. While the initial reduction in resources was
not at all desirable, they now work effectively as a team.
4. Conflict can clear out resentments and help people understand each other. In a con-
flict, one cannot continue to go along as though one’s own perspective is the only
one. When others speak up and say what they need, want, think, and feel, the circle
of understanding is often expanded beyond the individual. Even though it may be dif-
ficult, conflict can help people pay attention to other points of view.
To continue the examination of views of conflict, we will present an overview of
everyday metaphors people use when describing conflict.
Insights from Metaphors

We try to make sense out of the disturbing, difficult experience of conflict by comparing
one’s current experience to something else we understand. When people compare one thing
to another, we often use metaphors to create a kind of compact, vivid shorthand descrip-
tion of a complicated process. Metaphors provide imaginative descriptions of emotional
experiences. They distill assumptions about the way we think (Goldberg 2009). Our way
of thinking depends on metaphoric language (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Conflict elicits
such strong feelings that metaphors arise in everyday speech, often taking “its creator as
well as its hearers, quite by surprise” (Rushing 1983). Aristotle understood analogy or
metaphor to be the source of truths, and a mark of genius. If this is true, you are a genius,
because you certainly use metaphors. Conflict metaphors reflect and create certain kinds
of communication.
In the following section, we present common metaphors for conflict interaction. The
way a conflict is expressed metaphorically creates a certain perception of what can happen,
what will happen, what should happen, and with what kind of feeling behavior takes place
(McCorkle and Mills 1992).
Two examples will get us started. Arnie, a manager, described his office as a windmill,
with people going around in circles above the ground, not knowing that the pipe connect-
ing the windmill wheel to the underground well has been severed. You can picture the
pointless, aimless effort in the office, the sense of purposelessness, and even the dry, arid
quality of the human interactions. Nothing life-giving comes from the work.
One student described her family as a melodrama—an old-time film in which a train
rushes across a bridge that is about to collapse. Father, the engineer, drives on at top speed,
unaware of the crumbling bridge. No lookouts are posted, and no one else is in the engineer’s
cab. Disaster looms. Imagine the confidence of the engineer, the panic of the passengers
(the family members), and the utter frustration at having no way to communicate with the
engineer who is steering them into disaster.
Application 2.7 What Is Conflict Like?
Before you read further about metaphors and conflict, take a moment to think of how you generally
describe conflict. Finish this open-ended sentence, “Conflict in my family is like
. . . .” Then, “Conflict in my workplace is like . . . .”
Metaphors Reflecting Danger

Many images and expressions of conflict cast such a negative tone that creativity is stifled.
Danger metaphors imply that the outcome is predetermined with little possibility for pro-
ductive conflict management. Metaphors expressing that conflict bring a danger warning
about the costs and consequences of conflict. In win–lose conflicts, what one person wins,
the other person, by necessity, loses. A scarce amount of resources is distributed, usually
unevenly, among the participants. One of the main reasons conflict brings up so much
emotion is that people assume that they have so much to lose. Sometimes, that is true.
Other times, as you will see, that assumption can be changed. When metaphors emphasize
danger (rather than opportunity), the language of conflict narratives serves to warn peo-
ple away from engaging in conflict. Listen for how conflict is described; you will notice
evocative metaphors. Some of them follow.
Conflict Is Warlike and Violent

War, with its violence, is the central metaphor for conflict. The following phrases regard-
ing conflict reflect the metaphor of war and violence:
Your actions are completely indefensible.

He attacked me where I was most vulnerable—through my kids.
That criticism is right on target.
OK, shoot!
I feel beaten down and defeated after our talk.
He is killing me.
When conflict is envisioned as warlike, certain actions seem natural. In a staff meet-
ing, for instance, accusations are “hurled back and forth” as if primitives are bashing
each other with stones. If arguments are felt to be “right on target,” then the whole melee
is structured as a battle. The scene is that of a battlefield; the actors are people of war-
ring groups who are committed to wiping each other out. The acts aim to produce an
advantage by killing or reducing the effectiveness of the opponent. The resolution pos-
sibilities are reduced to offense and defense, and the purpose is harm, or vengeance. The
war metaphor influences the entire perception of the conflict. Both winning and losing
sides feel incomplete; victors desire more power, and losers shore up their defenses for
the next attack. Perhaps you work in an organization whose workers act as if conflicts
were large or small wars, and fights were battles in the ongoing war. If your organization
uses a “chain of command,” gives people “orders,” “attacks competitors,” “wages adver-
tising or public relations campaigns,” “fires traitors,” “employs diversionary tactics,” or
“launches assaults,” then the organization has evolved a military metaphor for conflict
management. If so, conflict is likely to be solved the way it would be if one were on a
battlefield. One organization described two managers as “ruling over neighboring fief-
doms.” One can imagine raids on resources and patrolling boundaries as normal activi-
ties with such a metaphor.
“He is Killing Me”
In a large technological research firm, military metaphors abound. The program directors are under
a lot of stress with high-stakes external negotiations, which involve millions of dollars. When they
have a meeting with someone who shouts or stomps out of the room, they find it very unpleasant.
Between rounds of negotiation, they might tell another program director that “he is killing me.”
Everyone immediately knows what this metaphor means:
(1) This negotiation is very important, (2) I’m concerned that we won’t “make a deal” on this con-
tract, and (3) he is acting in ways that make me likely to lose.
Couples talk in warlike terms, too. They may say:

I just retreat. I fall back and regroup. Then I wait for an opening . . .
He runs over me when I cry and get confused.
When I don’t want it to come to blows (laughs), I launch a diversionary tactic, like
telling him the kids are calling me.
“She’s Squeezing the Life out of Me”
A divorcing couple, Kent and Jeannie, were at odds over the division of their property. Most of the
big items had been decided, and they were down to the smaller but more symbolic things such as
music, art, family pictures, and gifts to one another. In describing their negotiations, Kent said in
the mediator’s office, “She’s choking me,” “These are my lifeblood,” and “These things are my life.”
Jeannie saw the items as “just stuff, for heaven’s sake.” The metaphors the couple used revealed
the degree of importance they put on the items.
Chronic use of military or violent metaphors severely limits creative problem solving.
Other metaphors would capture different realities instead of focusing only on military images.
Conflict Is Bullying
In an extensive analysis of metaphors that explain workplace bullying, vivid and painful
images of being hunted (“Everybody’s fair game”) and experiencing abuse (“I’ve been
ripped,” “broken,” “beaten,” and “eviscerated”) emerged from the question, “What does
bullying feel like?” (Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, and Alberts 2006). Respondents spoke of a
“dictator” lording it over the slaves. One worker said, “You literally have a Hitler running
around down there who’s a mile away from the management who can’t see it” (the bullying).
The same researchers heard bullies described as an evil demon and a Jekyll and Hyde
character who was entirely unpredictable. In the extended “bully” metaphor, low-power
people described themselves as “a piece of property,” “slaves,” and “a caged animal.” People
referred to themselves as prisoners who were “doing time” (Tracy et al. 2006).
Conflict imagined this way, as a drama of bullying, implies an extreme power differ-
ence. The “winner takes all” in a bullying scenario.
Conflict Is Explosive
Perhaps you experience “explosive” conflicts, using phrases like the following to describe
the process:
He’s about to blow up. Any little thing will set him off.
Larry’s got a short fuse.
The pressure’s building up so fast that something’s gotta give soon!
I just needed to let off steam.
She really pushed my button.
Put a lid on it!
Such perceptions represent the action of igniting flammable materials (feelings), trig-
gering issues, and setting off an explosion. Maybe the pressure builds “under the surface,”
like in a volcano, or “in a pressure cooker,” such as an overcrowded office. People often
say they “blew their stacks” in response to an event. If people act out explosive conflicts,
they often see them as somehow out of their control (“He touched it off, not me”). The
“exploder” may feel better after a release of pressure; the people living in the vicinity may
feel blown away.
The explosion metaphor emphasizes danger in conflict. Participants can imagine
resolving the issue only by “blowing up” or by avoiding “touching it off.” Additionally,
people with “explosive tempers” are often relieved of their own responsibility to do some-
thing about the buildup of tension before they have to blow up. Family members are taught
to keep from making Dad or Mom mad, thus learning that conflict can be avoided by not
provoking someone, thus keeping the peace. Family systems theorists have labeled this
pattern as one of the destructive patterns of codependence—of taking too much responsi-
bility for the actions of others.
Conflict Is a Trial
The legal system provides a regulated, commonly accepted system for managing social
conflict. The system has evolved over hundreds of years and serves our culture well in
many instances. However, Western society has come to rely too much on the legal system,
partly as a result of the breakdown of community and personal modes of managing con-
flict. Thus, legal terms creep into personal or organizational conflict metaphors, since at
least the legal system has firm rules and expectations. Phrases like the following indicate
that legal metaphors may be shaping conflict behavior, and conflict parties believe they are
in a trial-like situation:
He’s got the best case.

The jury’s still out on that one.
You’re accusing me.
She’s the guilty party.
Don’t you dare accuse me . . .
You have no evidence for your allegations.
Even in conflicts between romantic partners or friends, one person might take on the
role of the prosecuting attorney, one the role of the defender of the accused. Friends might
get informally brought in as jury; one might say to friends, “Should I let him off on this
one?” Arguments between interdependent people often go back and forth as if there will
be a judgment of guilt or innocence, but often the jury stays out, no judge appears, and the
case remains unresolved, to simmer through the system until another suit (interpersonally)
arises. Courts maintain clearly delineated processes, basing decisions on law and prec-
edent. Interpersonal situations, however, have no system of law and order to back up a
decision. Few “trials” settle underlying issues in the conflict in personal relationships.
Instead, romantic partners or friends keep “going back to court” (keep arguing). The legal
metaphor doesn’t fit most interpersonal situations, but the participants act as if it does, then
remain bitterly disappointed that their case “doesn’t carry the day.”
Conflict Is a Wild Act of Nature

Conflict might be expressed as a negative natural disaster, or at least an uncontrollable act
of nature, such as a tornado, a hurricane, an avalanche, being swept away by a flood, a tsu-
nami, an earthquake, or a fire raging out of control (McCorkle and Mills 1992). One telling
phrase is that conflict feels like being “a rowboat caught in a hurricane.” McCorkle and
Mills note that those who feel powerless may “(a) take little or no responsibility for their
own actions that sustain the conflict, (b) feel that the other participant has all the choices,
or (c) believe that no one involved has any choices” (64). The best course of action, then,
would be to avoid conflict, since no positive outcome can be expected.
Conflict Is Animal Behavior

Human animals often characterize conflict as something done by other members of the
animal realm—not themselves. People may be called “stubborn as a mule” or described
as “butting heads,” or in a very common phrase, conflict is called “a zoo” (McCorkle and
Mills 1992). You may hear phrases like “tearing his throat out,” “slinking around,” “stalk-
ing,” or entering into a “feeding frenzy.” One worker was labeled as a bully’s “chew toy.”
Another felt like a “caged animal” (Tracy et al. 2006).
Conflict Is a Mess
Another intriguing image is that of conflict as a mess or as garbage. You’ll hear “Let’s not
open up that can of worms,” “They got all that garbage out in the open,” “Things are falling
apart around here,” or “Everything’s disintegrating.” People will ask to “tie up some loose
ends.” Another clear expression of the “mess” metaphor emerges when people say, “This
is a sticky situation,” or “Something stinks around here.”
Messes are difficult to manage because they spill over into other areas and can’t
be contained easily without making a bigger mess. A messy conflict usually means one
that is full of personal, emotional attachments. This metaphor indicates that feelings are
judged to be messy or not amenable to rational treatment. If the opposite of a messy
conflict is a clean or straightforward one, involving only facts and rationality rather than
messy feelings, then only part of the conflict can be resolved. The feelings will go under-
ground and “create a stink.” Later, we will discuss how feelings can be discussed in a
straightforward way.
Conflict Is a Communication Breakdown

A “breakdown in communication” is one of the most popular designations of conflict.
Referring to the process as a breakdown implies a telephone line that is down, a com-
puter that won’t communicate, a cell phone that drops calls, a car that won’t run, or even
differences in language that make it impossible to communicate. The implication that a
breakdown can be “fixed,” however, often turns out to be inaccurate. Many times people
communicate clearly in conflict interactions—only to find out that they are in an intrac-
table conflict. Clarity of communication sometimes improves the process of conflict man-
agement greatly, but it is a mistake to assume that clarity removes conflict.
Conflict Is a Game
The game, especially a ball game, image is popular. While it is true that games end in vic-
tory or defeat, making the overall metaphor a win–lose scenario, the process of “playing
the game” can be viewed as offering an opportunity. People “bat around ideas,” “toss the
ball into his court,” “strike out,” go “back and forth,” and “make an end run.”
The game image assumes rules defining the game and limiting interaction among the
players. Rules define fouls, out-of-bounds behavior, winning, losing, and when the game
is over. An even more intricate game is chess, which requires the players to keep in mind at
all times the predicted moves of the opponent. Chess is a game that can only be won by a
highly developed prediction of the strategy of the other player. If one doesn’t take account
of the opponent, one loses immediately. In chess, everyone plays by the same rules.
Gender issues present different levels of danger or opportunity, depending on how
strongly parties identify with their gender roles. Many men are raised to feel comfortable with
the game image, accepting wins and losses as “all part of the game.” Many women are less
comfortable with the metaphor, insisting on talking about what is going on, which some men
see as not playing by the rules. In an extended study of women engineers, Fletcher (1999) was
told again and again that solving high-visibility problems was the way to get ahead. People
solving problems of this type were referred to as “hitting a home run,” as opposed to being
“singles hitters,” who were seen as slow, steady contributors, but not the kind of team players
that win the promotion game. “Real work” was defined as the kind of problem solving that
involved team playing. Men consistently were ranked higher in this skill than were women
(Fletcher 1999, 91). Game metaphors reflect opportunities for men and danger for women.
Regardless of gender, game metaphors work poorly in intimate conflicts, because most games
provide a winner and a loser. In intimate conflicts, if anyone wins, the relationship loses.
Conflict Is a Heroic Adventure

The hero image is a popular conflict image. The superheroes of Western movies, science
fiction, myths, and life help scared people, who find a leader who is “bigger and better” than
them. They pledge loyalty to that leader, who is bound to protect them. The hero or heroine
is one who has found or done something beyond the normal range of experience. “A hero is
someone who has given his or her life to something bigger than oneself” (Campbell 1988, 123).
The question is whether the hero or heroine is really a match for the task at hand, can really
overcome the dangers, and has the requisite courage, knowledge, and capacity to serve.
This desire to follow a heroic leader emerges in all cultures. In social or political move-
ments, leaders organize the energies of many people who overcome many obstacles to reach
a common goal. Many contemporary films focus on the actions of a hero or heroine who
saves large numbers of people (Rushing and Frentz 1995). The limit to this heroic metaphor
in conflict resolution is that one can become used to passively watching events happen on
TV or film. The spectator feels helpless or unimportant. If the right leader does not emerge,
a wonderful opportunity for change may be lost. Sometimes in organizations, the manager
or CEO functions as a hero for a while, sheltering and protecting the people who report
to her or him. But if the manager falls in disfavor, a period of distress emerges while new
leadership forms. People may get stuck in certain roles in the heroic drama, such as damsel
in distress, knight in shining armor, lieutenant or helper to the “great one,” or victim. In
conflicts, opportunity is heightened when we are able to play various roles as needed.
Many of the heroic roles specify men as actors. Roles such as king, dragon slayer,
the lone Western gunslinger, the sports hero, or the action hero of adventure movies are
more often filled by men than women (Gerzon 1992). However, Rushing and Frentz (1995)
indicate that films, especially Westerns and science fiction, are providing more and more
heroic roles for women.
Conflict Is a Balancing Act

Conflict is referred to as a delicate balancing act, like that of a tightrope walker, or that of a
rock climber, who must find just the right handholds or fall to sure death. Often negotiations
in the formative stages are referred to as “in a very delicate” stage, in which one “false move”
will scuttle negotiations. Satir (1972) refers to a family as a mobile, which can be unbal-
anced by one member’s having too much weight or getting stirred up, thus making the whole
mobile swing and sway. Working toward balance can present the opportunity to get to the
other side, or to rest from working at a problem. Couples who “balance” their conflicts with
cooperation and collaboration, for instance, don’t exhaust themselves avoiding or fighting.
Conflict Is a Bargaining Table

A collaborative approach to conflict is exemplified by the common metaphor of “the
table.” Diplomacy, labor negotiations, and parliamentary procedure all use this image. The
conflict structure and procedure depend on the table as a central feature. Families are urged
to sit down to dinner together, labor and management officials “come to the table,” and
diplomats struggle over the shape of actual tables at conferences. These real or imagined
tables communicate information about who the conflict participants will be, how they will
act, and what their placement will be in relationship to each other. Opportunities arise
when people “come to the table” or “lay their cards on the table.”
King Arthur, in historical legend, created a round table to symbolize equal discussion,
with each knight having one vote. The idea of “right makes might” substituted, for a time,
for “might makes right.” When the federation disintegrated, the round table, smashed to
pieces by dissident knights, became a symbol of the disintegration. Other examples of
“table” imagery in conflict management include the following:
In parliamentary procedure, “tabling a motion” stops movement toward a decision.
“Bringing a motion off the table” indicates a readiness to decide.
“Under the table” refers to hidden or secretive agreements.
“Turning the tables” comes from a medieval custom of turning from one dinner partner to
another to begin conversation. It was done in response to the king’s or queen’s gesture. If
the “tables are turned,” a person feels a sudden lack of contact or support, or loss of an ally.
The table metaphor helps us think about power, especially uneven power. Conflict
resolution remains difficult if people are “negotiating at an uneven table” (Kritek 1994).
People may be metaphorically seated at an uneven table if they do not have the skills to
negotiate, come from the nondominant culture, hold unequal positions in an organization,
or do not have the freedom to come and go from “the table.”
Conflict Is a Tide
Tides ebb and flow within predictable parameters based on the phases of the moon, the
climatic conditions, the shape of the shoreline, and the currents of the ocean. The tides
are predictable only through observation and careful record keeping. If the relationship is
equal and trusting, like tides, the conflict will develop its own rhythm that will not wash
away the foundation of the relationship. Conflict will ebb, as well as rise. For example,
many families experience more conflict than usual when a college student comes home for
the summer to work. After being on their own for several years, many students experience
too many restrictions at home, and parents experience what appears to be too little family
involvement and accountability on the part of the student. Many times, several “high tide”
conflict experiences prompt a family to reset the expectations and boundaries. Then for
the rest of the summer, conflict episodes recede to “low tide.” Thinking ahead about this
possibility helps many family members navigate well through a potentially stormy time.
Conflict Is a Dance
People speak of “learning to dance to the same music.” In a dance, participants have to
learn how close and how far to move, how to regulate distance, when to slow down and
when to speed up, how to maintain contact with partners so they know where they will be,
and how to end the dance (Lindbergh 1955). Different flourishes and steps can add to the
grace and beauty of the dance. Dancing can be energetic, stimulating, and exhilarating.
Sometimes one’s partner steps on one’s toes, can’t dance very well, is awkward, or doesn’t
know the steps yet. But the whole idea of dancing with partners is to create something
beautiful, graceful, and inspiring that depends on each person’s skill, training, and individ-
ual expression. Dance can give collaborative images of conflict on which to build. Conflict
envisioned as dance is reflected in the following statements:
“I feel hurried. I need more time.” (The person is not saying, “I need a different partner.”)
“Quit dancing around, and come over here and talk with me, please.” (One person
may be saying, “I don’t know these steps, and I can’t reach you. I think you are avoid-
ing contact. Please let me in.”)
“They’re just do-si-do-ing [a square-dancing term] around.” (The people look as
though they are doing something together but really have their backs to each other
and their arms folded—a fairly noninteractive way to dance!)
Conflict often feels threatening and aversive. In important relationships, use the skill of
maintaining contact, whether close or far, when interacting with your conflict partners. You
can find the interaction, which can help you use strategies of opportunity rather than danger.
Conflict Is a Garden
Conflict can be like a carefully cultivated garden or farm. In creative conflict, as in good
gardening, seeds are planted for future growth, pests are managed, weeds are pulled, and
the garden is watered when needed. Sun and light are needed for the plants to grow, and
the most fruitful outcomes occur when the conditions are carefully tended. If constructive
conflict can be seen as a garden, many positive outcomes can be experienced. In good gar-
dening, poisons are not put on the ground—thus, rage and attacks, which poison an ongo-
ing relationship, become as unthinkable as putting dry-cleaning fluid on rosebushes. In
good gardens, individual plants are given room to grow. Some plants are thinned to make
room for mature plants. In human relationships, people learn to leave space for others, to
give them room to grow, and to plant compatible varieties together. As a child you may
have learned that no amount of watching beans or carrots in a garden would make them
grow any faster. Human relationships, especially when conflict has recently been part of
the environment, need time to grow slowly, to recover from stress, and to put down roots.
We can “harvest” the fruits of careful labor (Kritek 1994, 275).
Conflict Resolution as Quilt Making
One metaphor coming from a historically women’s craft is making a quilt (Kritek 1994)
or “piecing together a solution.” We may speak of putting together a “patchwork of ideas.”
When making a quilt, people have to decide on the basic color scheme (tone or emotional
climate), the design, and what kind of fabric to use. Recently, quilt making has been stud-
ied as an artform pioneered by women. Not only did women gather together to make a quilt
out of scraps and remnants, they also engaged in informal conciliation around the quilting
activity. Such activities still flourish. Community groups have made quilts for victims of
violence, for children who are sick, for relief activities, and have raised funds for their
programs. At a quilting workshop or festival, individual projects (like individual interests)
benefit from the suggestions and appreciation of others. In conflicts, appreciation of the
others’ efforts helps keep parties engaged in constructive conflict.
Conflict as Musical Improvisation
Conflict can reflect artistry, as in jazz or drumming. In certain kinds of music, individual
musicians follow the lead of one soloist, picking up on the theme or the rhythm and extend-
ing the music. The solo passes around in the ensemble. Improvisation depends on core
skills. One does not simply create something out of nothing. One needs experience and
knowledge (Weick 1998). Improvisation involves joining the spirit of the present music,
and creative that draws from past music while understanding the music being created in
the moment. In drumming circles, the rhythms grow out of the shared experience of the
rhythm. Interpersonal conflict can be like this. Someone gets a good idea, expresses it,
and the others, rather than insisting on a different melody or rhythm, “add in” to what has
begun. Dissonance and harmony make interesting music. In improvisation, participants
develop a rhythm in conflict interaction that holds dissonance and resonance together. Dis-
cordance is balanced with buffers of harmony and cooperation (Putnam 2010). As in con-
structive conflict, in improvisation we don’t know how the music will end. We do know
that expert musicians (and conflict managers) make the best music.
When Metaphors Differ
Problems occur when people envision conflict in different ways. One person may think of
conflict as war, with all the attendant warlike images, while the other assumes that conflict
is more like a chess game—strategic, careful, thoughtful, and planned. Case 2.1 presents
an example of problems arising from different images of conflict.
Case 2.1 Is It a Mess or an Explosion?
Lynn and Bart are married to each other. Lynn sees conflict as a mess, something sticky and
uncomfortable, even slightly shady or dirty. People in her family believe that husbands and wives
who love each other don’t have conflict very often. Conflict is distasteful to her. She is likely to say,
“I don’t want to talk about it now. Let’s just leave the whole mess until this weekend. I can’t handle
it tonight.” Bart sees and feels conflict as an explosion—his stomach tightens, his pulse races,
and his heart begins to pound. He likes to reduce the pressure of all this emotion. He’s a feelings-
oriented person, whereas Lynn is more likely to use a reasoning process if she has to deal with an
issue. Bart is likely to say, “I am not going to sit on this until Saturday morning. You can’t expect me
to hold all this in. It’s not fair, you always . . . .”
In addition to their specific conflict, Bart and Lynn are fighting over how to fight;
indeed, they are fighting over what conflict is and how they experience it. Each assumes
that the other thinks about the conflict the way he or she does. They could not be farther
from the truth, as they probably will find out.
You can find your own metaphors using the following structured technique to generate
creative ideas for managing your conflicts.
Application 2.8 Playing with Your Conflict Metaphor
1. Class members generate a metaphor for an important conflict, using one of the previous
suggestions. Each person writes out his or her own metaphoric image. (“We are a . . . .”)
2. One person shares the image with the group of conflicting parties or the discussion group.
The group then asks clarifying questions of the person sharing the metaphor, using the
images developed in the original metaphor.
3. The group then brainstorms, still using the imaginary mode, about ways to resolve the
conflict. (In brainstorming, you reserve “editing” until later.)
4. The facilitator or leader then asks the group to translate these imaginary resolutions into
practical steps for conflict management.
5. The primary party, or the group, then chooses the options that are most likely to lead to
collaborative conflict management.
6. After all the conflict parties have repeated this procedure, a contract is made for selected
change.
Application 2.9 presents an example of using metaphors to generate communication

options.
Application 2.9 The Dangerous Minefield
Margaret, a college student, writes:

My father and I are in a minefield. The sky is blue, the sun is shining, green grass and sudden death
lie underneath the surface. Each of us is responsible for some of the mines underfoot, and we have
to avoid our own mines as well as those planted by the other person. There are scattered trees and
bushes around the field, which is quite large. They provide limited cover. We are each trying to get
in close enough to the other to get a good look without being seen.
My father throws rocks at me to try to flush me out into the open. I back around a bush and
meet him. Boom! There’s a big explosion—we both flee, wounded, only to begin the standoff over
again.
Here are some metaphoric solutions for “The Dangerous Minefield” translated into
practical steps for conflict management:
Metaphoric Solutions Communication Possibilities

1. Dig up my mines, or tell him where Disclose myself
they are
2. Get a metal detector, locate his mines, Psych him out and
and
a. dig them up; a. confront him;
b. throw heavy objects from a dis- b. backstab him;
tance to set them off;
c. avoid them c. avoid him or “be nice”
3. Wear explosion-proof armor Decrease my dependence
4. Throw rocks at him Attack or goad him
5. Abandon the field; leave Don’t communicate at all
6. Hold on to him during explosion Increase closeness and interdependence,
so we can’t run from each other but at great risk
7. Cut down the foliage to get a better Describe our behaviors and feelings
view of each other
8. Use binoculars to see each other Get information on him from other
sources; focus carefully
9. Whistle as I go around the field Let him know “where I’m coming from”
10. Stand in the open so he can see me Give him a chance to get information
about me; write him a letter
Options 1 and 7 through 10 seem to be moves that would help productively manage
the conflict. Many more exist, but these are a good start.
Listen and Learn from Metaphors

Other images of conflict can be detected in ordinary conversation. Listen to the way you
and others talk—eavesdrop at work, scrutinize news reports, and pay attention to images in
films. See if you can determine the metaphor that shapes a particular view about conflict
in a family, an agency, a social group, the general public, or even the nation. What might
it mean, for instance, if conflict is seen as an irritant, as in “She bugs me,” or “Get off my
back,” or “He’s just trying to get a rise out of you”? Do you think conflict takes on a life of
its own, as when it “snowballs out of control” or is “a runaway train”? Many people experi-
ence conflict as an endless circle of repetition, going nowhere, as exemplified by phrases
such as “We’re just going round and round,” “We’re on a merry-go-round,” or “Here we
go again!” The tedium of conflict is reflected in “same song, second verse.” People refer
to conflicts as “a drain,” “a lot of grief,” “a heavy burden,” or “poison.” Attending to these
vivid images can stimulate your creativity and help you to sort out which images of con-
flict are dangerous and limiting and which are helpful and present new opportunities.
Application 2.10 Reframing Your Conflict
Think of a conflict you have observed or experienced—possibly one you thought about earlier in
the chapter. First, determine whether any conflict metaphor applies to this conflict. You can think of
a metaphor of your own, or use one we have presented. If you stay in the current framework, what
options are available to you for resolving the conflict? List at least three. Now choose a different,
more positive metaphor for “framing” the same conflict. List at least three options that might be
available to you if you envision the conflict in this way. Discuss your results.
Narratives Frame Conflict

In the previous section, you learned to identify and derive conflict strategies by working
with metaphors for conflict. By doing so, you gained one more approach for resolving con-
flicts. Narratives, or the internal and external stories we tell ourselves and others, also frame
conflict resolution approaches (Bochner 2012; Holman-Jones, Adams, and Ellis 2013).
When one experiences a painful or unresolved conflict, the stories we tell to make sense of
what is happening often contain clues as to how you experience resources as scarce, goals
as incompatible, or how you perceive the expression of the conflict. The story in Applica-
tion 2.11 gives one person’s perception of a conflict.
Application 2.11 Hiking Group Breakup
Four friends who live in the mountains decided to start a hiking group. They enjoy new hiking adven-
tures, so after several years of hiking together on an ad hoc basis they expanded their foursome, invit-
ing about 20 others. The arrangement was to be that the original hikers—Shelly, Jack, Eleanor, and
Casey—would organize hikes around their town, announce them on social media, and lead the hikes.
This worked well for a while, with a varying number of hikers exploring new trails, lakes, streams, and
wilderness areas. After a while, the organizing became more complicated. Members of the loosely
(continued)
Application 2.11 Hiking Group Breakup
organized group brought their friends. Sometimes small groups would wander off on their own adven-
tures, with the organizers not knowing where they wandered and whether they needed help. Some-
times the hiking days ended up in frustration for the original four. At one point, Casey proposed to the
other organizers that they distribute a new set of guidelines. He suggested that the four of them alter-
nate leadership, and that anyone wanting to join a hike must let the organizer know by Thursday before
the Saturday hike who was coming. He suggested that no alternate hikes be undertaken during the day,
and that one of the organizers act as a “shepherd” at the back, making sure everyone was accounted
for, and that one of the organizers set the pace in the front, accommodating for slower hikers, with rest
stops. No one would go ahead of the group. This new set of guidelines worked for a while. Problems
arose when one of the members would say, “Tasha, Keith, Sherry, and I are going on the Sawmill Gulch
trail. Don’t worry, we’ll be fine.” Since all in the group were peers, the original four did not feel comfort-
able saying, “No, you agreed to stay with the group. Please don’t go off on your own.” The hikes were
supposed to be fun. During the second summer of the new guidelines, Shelly said that she would con-
tinue to hike with the group when she could, but no longer wanted to organize or lead. At the end of the
summer, Shelly invited a few friends to join in a new, loosely organized hiking group. She dropped out
of the original hiking group. Sometimes when the original friends ran into each other, they avoided eye
contact and conversation. About a year later, the former friends agreed, at Casey’s suggestion, to get
together to talk about what had happened and to see if they could salvage any part of their friendship
with Shelley and with each other. They no longer spent time together, and the three original hikers led
hikes only occasionally. In that conversation, several narratives emerged:
Shelly: “I enjoyed our original hikes. I loved following along when one of you planned an
adventure that was new to me. I liked our talks while we were walking. Our camara-
derie pushed me to go farther that I would have gone without you guys. But I began
to dread the hikes instead of look forward to them. I hated being both a leader and a
shepherd, because I was always looking out for the group, and not just enjoying hik-
ing. I didn’t want to chat with new people during all the hikes. I missed you guys, the
friends who made all this fun. And I really didn’t want to tell people they had to stay in
line. So I dropped out. I thought it was my own business to start a new, smaller group.”
Casey: “I felt betrayed when you, Shelly, dropped out of leadership. We had done some-
thing special, organizing so many people to hike in this beautiful country. I missed
our talks when we were hiking, and getting together over a beer to look at maps
and plan the next adventure. When the group grew, I was happy to take a leader-
ship role, especially since I trained as an EMT and care about safety in the woods.
Since we graduated and started our jobs and graduate school, this was the primary
way we stayed connected. Then when you started a new group, Shelly, and didn’t
tell the rest of us, I felt doubly betrayed and angry. I decided you just didn’t want to
be friends, so I moved on.
Shelly’s narrative framed her experience as one in which she did not want to enforce
rules, lead a large group, and chat with near-strangers. She emphasized personal preference
and freedom to meet her own needs. Casey’s narrative emphasized group solidarity, pride in
their accomplishment, loyalty, and safety along the trail.
Jack and Eleanor wanted to attempt to mend the conflict and resume their friend-
ships. In small groups, look again at the definition of conflict in Chapter 1, and brainstorm
approaches Jack and Eleanor might suggest, assuming all four want to find a way to be
friends. Using the two narratives presented, what suggestions might lead the group toward
reconnecting?
Here are a few suggestions to get you started:
∙ What are the backstories for all four people? Telling more of the story might help the
four friends to see whether their goals are indeed incompatible, or whether overlap
might emerge. Shelly might continue her story this way: “I looked forward to our
hikes because I liked the hard exercise, while at the same time I could catch up with
my best friends. When the group grew, often I was hiking with strangers. Also, our
pace slowed as we were trying to accommodate everyone.” Casey’s backstory might
continue: “I am looking forward to getting into resource management, especially
guiding. I like to help people enjoy the wild country around us. Doing this with my
best friends helped me learn how to accommodate the needs of a group. I counted on
our planning sessions to catch up with each other.” Might these goals be more com-
patible than they seem?
∙ Eleanor’s backstory might continue: “Shelly and I are still close, and I’m grateful
for that. But with my new job, I don’t have every Saturday free during the summer.
I miss our adventures. I don’t really have time for a lot of planning and organizing
now.” What scarce resources could be explored?
Notice that in this example, Eleanor and Keith take the role of informal conflict reso-
lution parties. We will further discuss these informal roles in Chapter 9 when we present
intervention strategies. For now, be aware that friends often take the role of informal con-
ciliators in groups of peers.
How Do You Perceive Specific Conflict?

Your history and worldview influence how you respond to conflict. The metaphors we use
for conflict illuminate our personal ways of viewing conflict in general. Narratives frame
the conflict strategies that might effectively be used. We turn now to the process of ana-
lyzing and viewing any specific conflict. While each conflict episode is unique, common
elements underlie all conflicts.
Any conflict can be viewed through (1) communication behaviors and (2) the percep-
tions of those behaviors. Each person views (1) oneself, (2) the other person, and (3) the
relationship in a specific way. Many conflicts occur because of different perceptions. These
perceptual pieces form the fundamental views of all conflicts. Combined, the perception
pieces form a mosaic interpretation of a conflict. A helpful mosaic takes shape from the
perceptions of all the conflict parties. Every conflict takes form from the combination of:
∙ The communicative acts (behaviors) of each person
∙ The meanings (attributions) attached to those acts by each person:
Each person’s view of self
Each person’s view of the other
∙ The meanings (attributions) the conflict parties ascribe to their relationship:

Past events
Current events
Future projections
Note that each person has a lens or filter that gives that person a particular perspective,
just as people use different types of glasses to see. We all think our view of a conflict is real.
So do all the other parties. Perceptions are, in fact, “real,” and must be treated as important
data. What you see is all there is . . . until enough conversation occurs to change one’s views
of the self, the other, and the relationship. It’s never effective to say, “That is only your per-
ception.” If someone makes that comment to you, you might respond, “Yes, it is. I’ll listen
to your perception if you will hear mine.” When you hear another person’s perception, and
you can scarcely believe they are talking about the same event, “Say, I am getting how you
see this issue/conflict/event. I see it differently, at this point.” First affirm what the other
person perceives, then speak about your provisional perception (“at this point”). This indi-
cates that you might be open to change (and hope the other will be, as well).
In Nepal and Tibet, this idea of lens is captured when people speak of two sides of
seeing something. A person in conflict might say, “Well from my side, I guess I am get-
ting tired of waiting for him, but I don’t know what is going on from his side.” The idea of
another side begins a helpful process of understanding the other. One side usually does not
understand the other side—your lens and the other’s lens distort the events in different ways.
Don’t Believe What You See—At First

We will continue to use the metaphor of a lens or filter to describe perception. Have you
noticed how easy it is to focus on what your “opponent” does in a conflict? She leaves you out
of a meeting, cuts you off in the middle of an explanation, or takes a position and sticks with
it even though you have perfectly reasonable grounds for what you think. How easy it is to tell
your friend, “Her actions say it all.” An administrative assistant in an organization said of her
manager, “She just has it in for me. She picks on me. I can’t do anything right.” Her perception
clearly indicated to her that the manager’s lens, or filter, was to blame for her unhappiness. On
the other hand, the manager pinpointed several tasks that the assistant continually did poorly.
For the manager, the fault, seen through her lens of performance, was poor performance. Up
until that point, no one was providing an alternative view. Our perceptions depend entirely on
our interpretations, the meaning we attribute to what someone says or does.
The impact of someone’s actions depends on how the behaviors are interpreted by the
other people involved. For example, Amber and Aaron are attorneys married to each other.
At home, Amber interrupts Aaron a lot; both push for airtime. For many couples, inter-
ruptions mean disrespect. In this case, Aaron likes Amber’s interruptions, appreciating
her passion because he likes full involvement in the conversation. An outsider, such as a
researcher, might have interpreted the interruptions negatively. The “relationship view” for
Aaron and Amber says, “interruptions indicate interest.”
Another example will be familiar to parents. When Sydney accidentally steps on Luke,
he shouts to her parents, “She did that on purpose” and begins crying. His perception of
her intent drives his reaction. However, intent does not equal impact.
intent ≠ impact
Your intent in a conflict almost never equals the impact on the other person. Judy, a
manager in a city office, sees herself as friendly and open. She asks employees how they
are doing, inquiring about their family members—she has a positive intent. Yet, the impact
is that employees feel forced to talk about personal things. The dispute escalates into a
petition from the employees to have her removed as manager. When she is told about the
petition, she is shocked, and says, “But I’m only intending to show interest and support for
them.” Intent is not equal to impact. You may have experienced how futile your words are
when you say, “But I had no intention of hurting you.” Meaning develops through repeated
interactions; all communication behavior is interpreted. Communication does not “speak
for itself.” When your conflict partner expresses the impact of your behavior on her emo-
tions, perceptions of you, and her willingness to collaborate, believe her. She is the expert
on the impact of your behavior, not you.
Perceptions of and attributions about behaviors are at the heart of the conflict pro-
cess. Research on attribution theory shows conclusively that we make different attributions
about ourselves than about others. Attribution research shows the following:
∙ We try to make sense out of behavior by looking for causes.
∙ We attribute causes of our behavior to external factors (e.g., “I was under extreme
time pressure.”)
∙ We attribute causes of others’ behavior to internal dispositions (e.g., “She always
wants her own way.”)
Clearly, we use a different lens for viewing ourselves than we do for viewing others.
When we are exposed to conflict, we tend to attribute any negative effects to the other rather
than to ourselves. This tendency explains the familiar refrain of “It’s his fault!” As the stress
of conflict increases, blame of others also increases. We begin with an attribution of blame,
and then choose our next conflict move based on our perception that the other is at fault.
Confounding the problem, we attribute our successes to our own efforts and our failures to
external factors. The other party does the same thing. No wonder conflict is so difficult.
Identify Your Filters

One’s views of self, other, and relationships are always, to some degree, biased. (You can log
in to Project Implicit, a series of assessments sponsored by Harvard University, to determine
bias for race, gender, sexual orientation, politics, and other areas of bias.) We all filter our
experience through implicit assumptions; no true perspective can exist because of personal
differences. If you have ever known both individuals of a broken-up romance, you see the
complications very clearly. While they once had only good things to say about the other
(“She is just so perfect”), they now see only the unattractive features of the ex-partner. When
you talk with both of them after the breakup, their implicit assumptions are so strong it
doesn’t even sound as though they were in the same relationship! Indeed, they were not,
because each saw the relationship through his or her biases. Hurt, anger, disappointment, dif-
ferent attributions of communication, and internal sense-making all contribute to a drastically
different view of why the breakup happened and who the other person is. One partner may
conclude: “Only an incredibly insensitive person could have treated me that way. How could
I have been so stupid?” The other partner might say, “She didn’t even let me explain. She
completely misinterpreted what happened. She always thinks she is right.
She didn’t listen, so she broke up with me.” As you probably know well, after a
breakup, partners seldom repair the lenses through which they saw the other; they often
carry around a single-vision, distorted view for the rest of their lives.
The following conversation between two people occurred with two listeners present,
as they began coaching to get help for their conflicts at work. Notice the different internal
filters they automatically use that give them their opposing perspectives. The two of them
work together and had just hosted a special event. They coordinated a series of public
meetings for people outside their organization.
Program coordinator: The executive director does not listen to me, does not include me in
decisions, reluctantly agrees to include me, then goes her merry way
without consulting me. This happened five times this week during the
visit of some important people. She is too controlling. I don’t see that I
have a future here. (She cannot see that I have value. I am discouraged.)
Executive director: The program coordinator is too passive and does not remember when
I talk to him. Further, he is power hungry and wants to run things
himself. I specifically remember inviting him to participate on most
of these occasions. What is his problem? (I don’t trust him to make
good decisions; he needs special handling.)
The two of them then began a round of mutual blaming. With facilitation, they began
to work their way through this dispute. Both remain involved in the organization, with the
program coordinator taking more responsibility and the executive director sharing more
information.
Outsiders to a dispute, whether they are researchers, intervention agents, or friends,
also bring their own attributions to the table—adding still other perspectives to the conflict
process. While the parties in the previous example see the crucial issues as inclusion, power,
control, and assertiveness, an outsider might focus on other issues. For example, during
the exchange between the program coordinator and executive director, one of the facilita-
tors was thinking, Hmm, the coordinator seems very angry. Does he have a problem with
strong-willed women? Has the executive director already decided she wants him gone?
Is this facilitation just for show?
Notice how different the starting attributions are for all the people present early in any
conflict. Conflict resolution depends on taking in new information, and remaining open to
influence.
Consider the importance of perception for married couples, who are happier if they
believe they are similar to each other. Whether or not they are similar appears irrelevant—
their assumptions determine their happiness (Acitelli, Douvan, and Veroff 1993). When
you come to see your work relationship or personal relationship as having no hope, that
belief alone predicts dissolution. As a relationship declines, the individuals make fewer
joint and more individual attributions. The dissolution of a marriage speeds up if the two
players see it as emanating from individual factors (Siegert and Stamp 1994, 358), such as
personality descriptions or traits (“selfish,” “aggressive,” or “untrustworthy”). If during
the first big fight the individuals develop a shared view of what happened, their relation-
ship is more likely to survive.
One study on environmental organizations and the timber industry found that each
side responds to, anticipates, and often copies the moves they think the other will make
(Lange 1993). This same dynamic is present in personal and workplace conflicts as well.
If you are not in communication with the other party, much like the environmentalists and
timber industry representatives in Lange’s study, then you mull over the conflict in your
own mind. Without interaction with the other, the only “information” you have is what is
going on in your own mind—your assumptions don’t have a chance to be updated. The
result? “Prolonged thinking about disputes in the absence of communication focuses indi-
viduals on their own perspective and enhances biases toward seeing disputes as serious and
holding partners responsible for conflicts” (Cloven and Roloff 1991, 153). When we listen
only to our own stories, then our view becomes even more biased. Cloven and Roloff found
that in only 1% of the time, individuals reported that they had thought about the conflict
from the partner’s view (136).
As you can see, the distorted view can become even more warped and hardened in
time. Here is an example of such thinking:
Joan
∙ Why is Jack late?
∙ He must be tied up.
∙ He was late last week, too.
∙ Hmmm, he is moving into the “irresponsible zone.”
∙ I wonder if he wants to tell me something about our relationship.
∙ It has now been 25 minutes—he is so inconsiderate.
∙ I knew he would be like this—Sandy warned me about him.
∙ Jack is a real jerk.
Jack
∙ Hi Joan. Sorry I’m late. I was counting on Kevin to bring my car back on time and
he was late. Driving over I realized my cell phone was out of power. I am very
sorry—you must have thought I was not coming.
Joan may or may not accept Jack’s explanation; the fact that Jack enters Joan’s
perspective makes a positive repair much more likely.
Application 2.12 “That’s Not What I Meant!”
Think back to a difficult issue that was made more tangled by perceptions that colored the experi-
ence. Remember a time when you were certain that the other person’s motivation was harmful to
you. How did you react as a result of this assumption? What was the outcome? Was the other ever
able to say, “That’s not what I meant at all. I was trying to tell you . . .”? What happened to the rela-
tionship as a result of these different perceptions? How might the results have differed if either had
checked out their perceptions, listened, and learned? Write dialogues that illustrate checking out
perceptions, or role-play a situation in which this might occur.
Gender Biases
Membership in the “gender club” exerts a powerful, pervasive influence on your develop-
ing conflict repertoire. Your own gender and the gender of those with whom you engage in
conflict affect (1) your behavior and (2) your views.
One of the primary ways to view the role of gender in conflict interaction comes
from the communication differences tradition, made popular by scholarly work in com-
munication and linguistics. This tradition has taken a “separate but equal” way of view-
ing communication differences. Rather than presenting women as deficient in “general”
(male) communication skills or males as lacking important relational skills that women
are assumed to possess, both gender-based preferences are studied openly. (See Ivy and
Backlund 2003; Pearson, West, and Turner 1995; Tannen 1994; and Wood 1997 for com-
prehensive reviews of gender differences and similarities.)
Gender encompasses both biological and social differences between men and women.
Biologically, males and females are distinguished based on their sexual organs. Parents
of a newborn will look for sexual organs that usually define “gender.” When a new par-
ent says “It’s a girl,” they are referring to biological markers. Gender also entails socially
defined gender identity—when you see yourself and others as male or female. These roles
are socially constructed, such as when someone says, “Oh, he is just a typical boy.” Usu-
ally when people are talking about conflict, they see biological sex and gender identity
as the same. For example, if you say, “The glass ceiling has finally been broken and a
woman ran for president,” you are treating biological sex and gender identity as the same.
When a male or female undergoes a sex-change operation, becoming the opposite gender,
this profound change alters others’ expectations of their communication behavior. Such
a change in expectations is not always warranted, because individual differences remain
more important than biological gender in determining what an individual will do. Gender,
both how we see ourselves and how we see others, has an impact on conflict behavior
because it is so fundamental. We are socialized into our gender clubs.
In some circumstances female/male differences do appear in existing typical con-
flict interactions. In same-sex platonic friendships, men use more competitive strategies
with each other than women do (Urban 2005). In another study, people who came from
families of origin categorized as “balanced” or “extreme,” referring to their cohesion and
flexibility, were given a confrontation task in the laboratory. Men, but not women, from
extremely close and extremely flexible (rather than more balanced) families experienced
more anger and negative nonverbal responses (Larkin, Frazer, and Wheat 2011). This may
be because conflict is experienced as a threat to identity. It is possible that women from
such families are more used to navigating various relational waters through conversation
(talking it through) than men, so felt less distress. In laboratory exercises, men will often
exhibit dominating and competitive behavior and women exhibit avoidant and compromis-
ing behavior (Papa and Natalle 1989). In real-life observations of young girls and boys
(at age 11), adolescent girls use verbal means of aggression, whereas boys use more physi-
cal aggression. Interestingly, both sexes used direct verbal aggression equally (Bjorkqvist,
Osterman, and Lagerspetz 1994). Current bullying research, discussed in Chapter 4, will
take you deeper into these questions of power and gender. Tannen summarizes her research
on gender differences in conflict by concluding that women are more likely to avoid con-
flict. Men are more likely than women to take control of the conversation to lead it in
the direction they want. However, they expect their (female) conversational partners to
mount some resistance to this effort, as men would be likely to do. Women often remain
in the “listening” role rather than “lecturing,” which puts them at a disadvantage in having
their voices heard (Tannen 1994, 11). In organizations, women are more likely to leave
than men are when there is ongoing, pervasive conflict. Higher-status individuals interrupt
more than lower-status people; however, women (in one study, women doctors) provided
more supportive, clarifying, and mending interruptions than male doctors did (Mentz and
Al-Roubaie 2008).
Before we decide that “men are like this and women are like that,” we need to examine
the similarities among men’s and women’s conflict behaviors. In a comprehensive exami-
nation of sex differences, researchers concluded that “no meaningful gender differences
in positive affect behavior, influence strategies, autocratic behavior, democratic behavior
communication, facilitation and leader emergence” were found. They report, “in both sur-
vey and observational studies, we discovered more similarities than differences between
men’s and women’s conflict behaviors” (Canary, Cupach, and Messman 1995, 131). How-
ever, the question of gender differences remains highly complex and is undergoing change.
In an approach called social learning theory, individuals are assumed to learn to be male
or female based on communication and observation. They learn gender roles in same-sex
groups. Wood (1997) explains that through imitation, young children imitate almost any-
thing they see and hear. However, only gender-consistent communication is rewarded by
important others around the child. Children slowly learn how to be a girl and how to be a
boy. Persons who discover that they feel identified more strongly with the opposite biologi-
cal sex may undergo gender confirmation surgery and medical intervention.
Culture plays an important role in gender development. Different valuing of autonomy
and dependence is reflected in culturally defined gender roles (Young-Eisendrath 1997).
In Western culture, girls and women are seen as valuing connection with others, the com-
munication of care and responsiveness, and the preservation of the relationship (Gilligan
1982; Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, and Surrey 1991). Boys and men are seen as valuing
autonomy and independence more highly, learning to communicate in ways that preserve
their independence from others (Kohlberg 1976). This assumption from decades ago also
is undergoing rapid change as each gender tries to widen its comfort with communica-
tion behaviors once experienced as other. One of the main hopes we hold as we explore
conflict, gender, power, and culture is to give each of you the opportunity to choose from
a wide range of communication behaviors, whether you identify as female or male. The
more choices you have, the more likely you are to be able to resolve disputes intelligently
and constructively.
Gender Influences Self-Esteem

Research clearly identifies a major slump in self-esteem for girls in early adolescence
(Sadker and Sadker 1994). They may not experience a noticeable climb in their self-esteem
until midlife, when family roles are less stringent and their career development is more in
place. Boys typically feel more self-esteem earlier in their lives but suffer from a sense of fail-
ure and disappointment in midlife when they do not reach their (unrealistically) high personal
goals (Barnett, Marshall, and Pleck 1992, 79). One of the tenets of this book is that all con-
flicts are about two issues: power and self-esteem. Both genders are limited by self-esteem
issues, perhaps at different times in their lives. One finding seems clear on a worldwide basis,
however: Men have more power culturally, even in highly educated countries such as the
Scandinavian countries (Young-Eisendrath 2000). Therefore, women and men often sit at an
uneven table. Later, we will discuss in detail ways to balance power effectively for long-term
conflict resolution, both in the workplace and in intimate relationships.
Gender differences depend partly on maturity and experience. One study shows expe-
rienced managers manifesting no gender differences in style, but “among participants
without managerial experience, women rated themselves as more integrating, obliging,
and compromising than did men” (Korabik, Baril, and Watson 1993, 405). Likewise, in
a negotiation context, “Women are not necessarily more fair-minded or compassionate”
than men (Watson 1994, 124). It may well be that most of the effects ascribed to gender
are due to other relationship factors such as power, gender of the opponent, prior moves of
the other, and so on.
In addition to potentially directing behaviors, gender often affects how one interprets
conflict behaviors. As we have seen, males and females tend to differ in seeing self and
other as connected. Even when actual behaviors may seem identical, for instance nego-
tiating competitively, men and women often conceptualize the relationship differently.
Women tend to see the self-in-relationship, with everyone affecting everyone else. One’s
self is formed and enacted in various relationships. Men are more likely to see the self as
independent, not as connected to specific relationships. For effective conflict management,
we must have both separate voices and a view that we are connected. When we see the self-
in-relationship as a theoretical starting point, it allows us to concentrate on the following
dimensions of conflict:
∙ Interdependence rather than power over others
∙ Mutual empathy as the basis for understanding and communicating
∙ Relational self-confidence instead of separate self-esteem (autonomy)
∙ Constructive conflict instead of domination
∙ Staying engaged with others while in conflict
∙ Valuing separate knowing and connected knowing
∙ Utilizing both report talk and rapport talk
∙ Continuing dialogue when there is disagreement
Models of constructive conflict are built on the ideas of partnership and

self-in-relationship (Bang, Fuglesang, Ovesen, and Eilertsen 2010; Belenky, Clinchy,
Goldberger, and Tarule 1986; Brown and Gilligan 1992; Goodrich 1991; Gottman 1999;
Tannen 1990; Wilmot 1995). Current research shows that the human brain is designed to
act in relationship with others; to act in an overly independent way goes against the “hard-
wiring” of the brain. Self-in-relationship ideas underlie the development of constructive
conflict practices discussed in subsequent chapters.
Gender assumptions offer at least two influences on our understanding of conflict.
First, many of the studies trying to pinpoint conflict behaviors are based on differences as
perceived by the respondents of surveys. For example, most of the studies that find male–
female differences in conflict choices ask college students to answer “in general” rather
than for a particular conflict. College students who have a stereotyped belief that there are
gender differences may report “behavior” differences when they may not be present. They
may also answer according to how they would like to see themselves, or how most women
and men their age see themselves. Their biases for seeing self and others influence the
studies looking for behavior differences in women and men.
Gender biases also affect our understanding of conflict because our biases may affect
our behaviors. When feeling powerless, males tend to “state their position and offer logi-
cal reasons to support it.” Women’s approaches depend on the gender of their opponents
(Watson 1994). As another researcher put it, “Men may use a more independent criterion
for managing conflict and women a more interdependent one” (Miller 1991, 28). Women
will choose responses based on interpersonal obligations, and men based on the offended
person’s rights. As a result of their focus on relationships, females in conflict seem to
exhibit fewer self-presentational actions (Haferkamp 1991–92). In preschool children ages
3 to 5, for example, Sheldon (1992) notes that young girls’ expressions of self-interest
are often meshed with “an expression of communal interests.” Research also indicates
that women in lesbian relationships may benefit from both being female in that they have
“more optimism about conflict resolution” (Metz, Rosser, and Strapko 1994, 305). The
biases we use, based on gender, affect how we enact conflict behaviors.
Cultural Perspectives
Who knows but one culture, knows no culture.

—Augsburger, Conflict Mediation Across Cultures: Pathways and Patterns
Application 2.13 Your Cultural History
The United States becomes more culturally diverse every decade. Think about your own cultural
history and roots, whether you and your family have been in the United States for generations or
whether you are recent immigrants. To gain a sense of how pervasive cultural differences are, think
about the neighborhood in which you spent part of your childhood, your fourth-grade classroom,
your experience making a geographical move, or your experience getting to know friends or new
family members from a different cultural background from your own. Share the results of your
reflections with someone from a different culture or geographical background in your class.
Each of us experiences cultural diversity at some level. About 150 different languages
are spoken in the United States. The United States becomes more influenced by Hispanic
cultures each year. U.S. culture is becoming less of a Western European offshoot in many
ways, making the recognition of cultural differences essential. We must “de-Westernize”
communication research and practice in all areas of communication study, including inter-
personal conflict. In the Western world we must go far beyond simply adapting to other
cultures, including cultures inside the United States. We must develop a way of under-
standing that helps us know that if one is a member of the dominant culture, one cannot
know the experiences of people in nondominant cultures without authentic dialogue and
de-Westernized research.
What comprises a conflict in one culture is a daily difference of opinion in another. A serious insult
in one setting—crossing one’s legs or showing the sole of one’s foot, for example—is a matter of
comfort in another. An arrogant challenge in one culture—putting one’s hands on one’s hips—is a
sign of openness in another. A normal pathway for de-escalating a conflict in one society—fleeing
the scene of an accident—constitutes a serious offense in another. Human boundaries are cultural
creations—social boundaries, legal boundaries, and emotional boundaries are all drawn according
to each culture’s values, myths, and preferences. (Augsberger 1992, 23)
Conflict behavior is not easily predicted by country of origin. In general two kinds
of cultures exist: individualistic and collectivistic. (See Gudykunst and Yun Kim [2002]
for an overview of intercultural communication.) Communicating across cultures is a kind
of intergroup communication. One of the problems we encounter is that communicat-
ing with “strangers” (their term for persons from other cultural groups than one’s own)
becomes more and more the norm as our worldwide communication becomes more rapid
and frequent. Those of us in the largely Western, individualistic cultures must come to an
understanding about the values and expectations of those in collectivistic cultures. For
instance, prevention of serious conflict is much more likely to occur in Japan, China, and
Thailand (collectivistic cultures) than in individualistic cultures (McCann and Honeycutt
2006; Moran, Allen, Wichman, Ando, and Sasano). But each culture uses a very wide
variety of ways to manage conflict. These ways are taught from childhood to persons in the
culture, so that they become the expectations for how conflict is conducted (Tinsley 2001).
Yet, these cultures—for instance, Nigeria (a non-Asian collectivist culture) and Canada (an
individualistic society)—do not teach their members to take neatly predictable, opposite
approaches (Gire and Carment 1993).
Westerners now understand that in many Asian cultures, self-expression is frowned
upon if it does not further the needs of the group. In the West, in general, autonomy and
self-expression are regarded more highly. Therefore, for Westerners to assume that indi-
vidual expression is of higher value than harmony in the larger group is to remain in a
Western, ethnocentric mode. Culturally, it may be true for Westerners that harmony is
achieved by explicit expression of individual emotion. Avoidance, which is prized in some
other cultures, may escalate conflict in the United States.
The United States can be described generally as an individualistic culture. A person
is supposed to say what he or she means and resolve disagreements through the use of
power (as in competition) or by working things out together (collaboration) (Wilson 1992).
In this type of culture, things are discussed and spelled out, rather than supported by
culturally defined, subtle nuances of interaction. This approach to resolving differences and
communicating relies on assertiveness, relatively equal power, and freedom from fear of
reprisal. Since these attributes are seldom present, however, U.S. culture rewards actions
that are, for some people in the culture, stressful or even impossible. For example, Barnlund
(1989) notes, “One of the most frequent shocks experienced by Japanese in coming to
America is the resilience of friendships in the face of such strong clashes of opinion:
Friends are able to confront each other, to vigorously argue contradictory views and to con-
tinue to be close friends in spite of their differences” (157). In situations in which people
enjoy approximately equal power and understand the rules of interaction easily and well,
the ideal of clarity and expressiveness works well. But when there is not a common base
of assumptions, one’s assertiveness can backfire. Japanese prefer direct means of working
out conflicts when the task dimension is seen as high, and the relationship conflict is seen
as low, while North Americans prefer more active ways of working out conflicts when the
relationship conflict is seen as high (Murayama et al. 2015).
In less-individualistic, more-collective cultures, discrepancies abound between what
is meant and what is actually said. Disagreements are resolved through avoidance or
accommodation, resulting in considerable face-saving (discussed at length in Chapter 3).
Nuances of communication take on major importance, along with expected ways of
behaving and working out problems. People do not confront others assertively and
directly; to do so is considered rude and ignorant. In collectivistic cultures, members
rely heavily on inferred meaning, whereas in individualistic cultures, members strive
for an understanding of the literal meaning (Borisoff and Victor 1989, 141). Commu-
nication researchers have provided a clear summary of some of the differences between
individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Table 2.1 portrays the differences in commu-
nicative strategies—direct and open compared to ambiguous and indirect. No wonder
cross-cultural communication is getting more and more attention; we certainly need all
the help we can get!
Similarly, Triandis (1980) notes some of the salient differences between the two orien-
tations. In individualistic cultures
many individuals are high in internal control, emphasize private goals, pay attention to what the
person does rather than who the person is . . . people think that decisions made by individuals
are better than decisions made by groups . . . where going one’s way and not paying attention to
the view of others is acceptable, where personal enjoyment is emphasized, where friendship is
a matter of personal choice. (65)
Table 2.1 Characteristics of Conflict in Two Types of Cultures
Key Questions Individualistic Cultures Collectivistic Cultures
Analytic, linear logic Synthetic, spiral logic

Instrumental-oriented Expressive-oriented
Dichotomy between conflict and Integration of conflict and conflict
conflict parties parties
Why?
Individual-oriented Group-oriented
Low-collective normative expectations High-collective normative expectations
Violations of individual expectations Violations of collective expectations
create conflict potentials create conflict potentials
What? Revealment Concealment
Direct, confrontational attitude Indirect, nonconfrontational attitude

Action- and solution-oriented Face- and relationship-oriented
Explicit communication codes Implicit communication codes
How?
Line-logic styles Point-logic styles
Rational, factual rhetoric Intuitive, affective rhetoric
Open, direct strategies Ambiguous, indirect strategies
Source: W. Gudykunst and S. Ting-Toomey, Culture and Interpersonal Communication (Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage, 1988), 158.
However, in collectivistic countries

there is an assumption that maintaining a strong group is the best guarantee of individual free-
dom, there is a strong emphasis on doing what the in-group specifies . . . shame and loss of face
are mechanisms of social control, there is sometimes the tyranny of the group, interpersonal
relations are an end in themselves, there are narrow in-groups, there is a concept of limited
good, there are more people under external control or motivation, people tend to think that plan-
ning is a waste of time, goals tend to be group rather than individual goals, who does something
is more important than what she/he does. (66)
One variation of a collectivistic culture is the honor culture, such as in Turkey, in
which conflict participants care greatly about other people’s perceptions of them. Insults
create great stress and instability (Günsoy et al. 2015). Certain subcultures in the United
States also share characteristics of the honor culture. What kind of conflict culture charac-
terizes your experience? Have you experienced a clash of cultures?
We live in a cobweb of relationships. When you die you are finally free of this cobweb of relationships—
which you leave to your children to carry on.
—Hiroko Takada, from Japan
In addition to bridging the gaps between international cultures, we need much more
exploration of cultural diversity within the United States. For example, many cultural groups
share some of the features of mainstream U.S. culture yet are distinct in ways that make con-
flict management and mediation of their disputes challenging to someone from the dominant
culture. Detailed outlines of cultural considerations for working with African American, His-
panic, and Native American cultures, for instance, are available. More research on conflict
with Muslim American cultures remains to be accomplished. Whatever set of assumptions
you choose to use, each framework places boundaries on constructive conflict management.
Sometimes effective management requires people to be clear, direct, and assertive. Yet, at
other times, deferring until the time is right, focusing primarily on the relationship compo-
nents, and thinking of indirect ways to manage the dispute are the best approaches. To solve
the most difficult problems, we cannot rely solely on the teachings of one culture. One major
problem encountered in individualistic cultures is that we receive little training in the search
for commonly acceptable solutions. If three people want different things, often the problem is
resolved by competing to see who is the strongest (“We’ll play it my way or not at all!”), or a
person has to have enough power to persuade others to go along with a search for a collabora-
tive solution. Therefore, many potentially collaborative ideas generated by low-power people
are dismissed as unimportant.
In the United States, students are often taught that directness, ease in public, clarity of
expression, assertiveness, and the ability to argue well are prerequisites to participation in
conflict management. Indeed, in many contexts these skills are essential. However, for people
who hold low-power positions in society, this is a very difficult set of skills to learn. To cor-
rect this imbalance, we need to focus also on indirect communication skills for people in
high-power positions. Both high- and low-power people contribute to the tangles that occur in
interpersonal conflict, and both must participate in better conflict management. Finally, cul-
tural considerations include nonverbal communication; concepts of time (such as lateness or
promptness); place of meetings or talks; whether content, relationship, identity, and process
issues can be separated or not; and face-saving (Borisoff and Victor 1989). As you begin to
pay attention to the structure of conflict interactions, include these cultural and power issues
in your analysis. Conflicts usually are not simple. If someone opens a conflict interaction by
saying, “It’s simple. We just have to do what makes sense . . . ,” you can be sure that, if the
conflict is ongoing or has raised a lot of emotion, the solution is not simple at all. Even within
a given culture, differences abound. In China, for example, people in the younger generation
prefer more direct talk than do older Chinese (Zhang, Harwood, and Hummert 2005).
Southern and northern U.S. regions may experience conflict differently. Northerners
seem to use “small doses of anger, rudeness and confrontational behavior” to send a mes-
sage to others to change their behavior. Southerners appear less likely to send “warning
signals” when conflict escalates. A culture of politeness may cover escalating anger, but
then anger erupts quickly. Researchers have called this the “culture of honor”—anger is
suppressed and then escalates quickly (Cohen, Vandello, Puente, and Rantilla 1999).
As you would expect, your cultural assumptions influence how you interpret others.
If you come from an individualistic culture, you may see a friend from Asia who rarely
speaks in public, agrees with everything everyone says, and doesn’t argue as having “no
backbone.” Or, conversely, if you come from a culture that prizes indirectness, to hear
someone argue with a parent is offensive. Such a person seems rude and insensitive to you.
In collective cultures “loss of face” has more serious relationship consequence (Kam and
Bond 2008). Cultural assumptions, many of which are not explicitly realized, influence our
perceptions and attributions of others’ behavior.
If we want to make more accurate attributions and meaning of others’ behavior, we
need to translate, interpret, and become fluent in several “conflict dialects.” Ask questions
about conflict norms when you are not familiar with a particular culture. Most people like
to answer a question such as, “Would you tell me how it works for your group? I need to
learn what expectations and values to expect. For instance, if you very much disagree with
someone who is older and has more power, what can you do?” Every person who intends
to manage conflict well must become curious about other cultures than one’s own.
While this book cannot cover all facets of cross-cultural communication, some work-
ing acquaintance with your own implicit assumptions absorbed through your cultural
background will allow you to imagine more conflict management options. Without such
awareness, one remains ethnocentric and trapped in the assumptions of one’s own culture
and biased against people from other groups with different assumptions about behavior.
Summary
Conflict is an important area of study because we or positive activity, develop over one’s lifetime.
all face it as we move through our interpersonal, The way one tells stories or narrates conflicts gives
family, and work lives. Your personal history, such much important information about the conflict
as your family of origin and other influences, makes itself. In this process, refined images or metaphors
a difference in how you respond to conflict. Percep- develop in one’s imagination and language that give
tions about conflict, whether it is an activity to be shape and meaning to conflict episodes. Metaphors
avoided or sought out and whether it is a negative generally present conflict as either dangerous or a
situation presenting opportunity. The way a conflict your approach, and your emotional response based
is narrated frames the conflict strategies that can be on new information. Gender often plays a key role
used. Stories matter. in the behaviors one chooses in conflict, and also
Perceptions and attributions influence conflict influences how one sees others. Finally, one’s cul-
resolution. Remember to inquire about one’s own ture (individualistic or collectivistic) affects one’s
perceptions, remaining open to new information. behaviors and one’s perceptions of others in a
You may need to change your mind, your story, conflict.
Key Terms
attachment styles 38 metaphors 49 self-in-relationship 69
personal and workplace conflict metaphors 49 gender assumptions 69
history 39 danger metaphors 50 gender biases 70
avoidant system 40 conflict narratives 50 cultural differences 70
collaborative system 40 intent ≠ impact 63 individualistic cultures 71
aggressive/coercive 40 attributions 65 collectivistic cultures 71
worldview 43 social learning theory 68 ethnocentric 71
negative views of conflict 45 connection with others 68
positive approaches to conflict 47 autonomy and independence 68
Review Questions
1. What is your own personal history with 9. What do conflict metaphors tell us?
conflicts? 10. What are some examples of danger metaphors?
2. Is your family avoidant, collaborative, or 11. What are some examples of opportunity
aggressive? metaphors?
3. Has your family approach to conflict changed? 12. Can you come up with a new metaphor
4. Describe attachments styles and how they expressing opportunity?
affect conflict later in life. 13. Chart the elements of the lens model of
5. What are some negative views of conflict? conflict.
6. Describe some positive views of conflict. 14. What are some persistent gender effects?
7. What is the difference between intention and 15. What does it mean to say there are gender and
impact? cultural filters?
8. Describe how narratives of conflict communi- 16. How does your culture affect how you view
cate about the conflict. and do conflict?
Chapter 3
Interests and Goals
“Winning or Losing?”
An American father and his 12-year-old son were enjoying a beautiful Saturday in Hyde Park,
London, playing catch with a Frisbee. Few in England had seen a Frisbee at that time, and a small
group of strollers gathered to watch this strange sport. Finally, one homburg- clad Britisher came
over to the father: “Sorry to bother you. Been watching you for a quarter of an hour. Who’s
winning?” (Fisher and Ury 1981, 154).
Our interests and goals are sometimes hard to identify (Bevan 2010). Both parties to the con-
flict and outsiders to the conflict often can’t identify goals and interests accurately. This chap-
ter describes the types of interests and goals we struggle over with others. We treat “interests”
and “goals” as different terms for the same things—what we want from engaging in conflict.
All conflicts hinge upon the reality that people perceive incompatible goals held by at
least two people who seem to be interfering with what the other person wants. Whether a
sister and her older brother are struggling over limited parental attention, two managers are
competing for a coveted promotion in the organization, two friends want to go to different
concerts, but with each other, or a seller and buyer are arguing over the price of a car, the
perception of incompatible goals fuels the conflict. In every conflict the interdependence
of the parties rests on both common and disparate goals, but the parties often perceive only
the disparate goals. When we realize that “what you want is not what I want,” we are in
a conflict. As the conflict intensifies, the parties focus more and more on the differences.
Conflict is more than a disagreement; when people believe that another interferes with
their interests and goals they sense conflict (Kerwin, Doherty, and Harman 2011).
Goals differ depending on the relationship. In a friendship, for example, your main
goal might be affinity—wanting the other to like you. On the job, you may primarily want
to gain information from colleagues or to persuade them about something, or to experience
stimulation and satisfaction from your work. With a sibling, you may want to maintain
close contact while he or she stays more casual about connection. Goals range from obtain-
ing money, goods, services, love, or status to getting information. In a conversation, your
primary goal might be to express your emotions. The majority of conflicts in stepfamilies
involved resources (e.g., possessions, space, time, attention, privacy, money), divided loyalty,
perceptions that the parents were showing favor to their “own” children, and conflicts with
members of the extended family (Coleman, Fine, Ganong, Downs, and Pauk 2001). Yet
the stepfamily members also want to maintain connection. In emotionally charged conflict
situations, you may be confused about what goals you want to achieve. If you are angry
at your roommate, you might not know whether (1) you want to punish her for being
sloppy; (2) you want her to like you, but you still want to influence her cleanliness stan-
dards; or (3) you want her to get angry and move out, so you can get a new roommate.
Most conflict participants initially lack goal clarity; they only discover their goals through
experiencing conflict with the other participants. As we will see later, the goals often shift
during the course of the conflict. What you want to achieve in the conflict also affects the
tactics you choose during the conflict. For example, if you are “defending yourself,” you
are likely to use self-oriented tactics—being competitive and looking out only for yourself.
On the other hand, if you want to improve a relationship, you are more likely to use con-
flict moves that are integrative—taking account of the others’ needs as well as your own.
One fact emerges from studying goals in personal and organizational settings—effectively
functioning teams have a clear understanding of their objectives. The more clearly individ-
uals or groups understand the nature of the problem and what they want to occur, the more
effective they will be in solving problems (Lau and Cobb 2010). When goals can be clearly
thought through ahead of time, you will be more likely to both negotiate for your goals and
acknowledge emerging goals in the conflict process (Tasa, White, and Leonardelli 2013).
Types of Goals: TRIP

People in conflict pursue four general types of goals: (1) topic or content, (2) relational,
(3) identity (or facework), and (4) process (see Figure 3.1). The acronym TRIP stands for
these major types of goals, which overlap and shift during disputes. These types of goals
will be examined one at a time.1
Figure 3.1 The Four Types of Goals Pursued During Conflict
T Topic
R Relationship
I Identity/facework
P Process
1
In earlier editions of this book, we used “content” following the influence of Watzlawick, Beavin, and
Jackson (1967). The TRIP acronym is much easier for students to recall; thus, we have changed the
label “content” to “topic.” Throughout this book, “content” and “topic” are used interchangeably.
Topic Goals: What Do We Want?

The key question when looking at a conflict is “What does each person want?” Topic, or
content, goals emerge as different ideas about what to do, what decisions to make, where
to go, how to allocate resources, or other externally objectifiable issues. Topic goals can be
listed, argued, supported by evidence, and broken down into pros and cons (Huang 2010).
For example, Amanda might tell her supervisor, “I have been here six months, and I am
hoping for a raise, assuming that you are satisfied with my work.” Other examples of topic
goals are
securing a student loan a clean apartment
more free time meaningful work
a new pair of skis fashionable clothing
space to work a different job
a vacation overseas reliable transportation
to sell a house for $200,000 transferring to a different college
In different contexts, the topics change. For example, in the workplace typical topics
emerge that cause disputes:
promotion efficiency getting to work on time
title job assignments
accuracy salary new computer
office location
In friendships, people might struggle over

loaning money what holiday plans to make
sharing a ride how welcome friends are in a shared apartment
where to recreate whether to share possessions
what music to listen to
which movies to see
In intimate relationships, people struggle over

How much time to spend together Differences in biorhythms
The place of other people in their lives How to spend money
When and how to have sex
Application 3.1 My Topic or Content Goals
Select three different relationship contexts such as school, work, friendship, and intimate relationship.
1. For each relationship, list the “topics” that typically arise for you and your friends in disputes.
2. Compare the list of topics across the three relationships.
Most of us discuss topics that are distinct in each relationship type as well as some that
cross all three categories. You might, for example, value cleanliness as an important topic
regardless of the situation, or this goal might be restricted to only your living environment.
Topic goals can be easily seen and talked about; they are external to us—we can point
to them and say, “I want that.” While they might be categorized as “objective,” feelings
still infuse these topics. Topic or content struggles are of two types: (1) people want dif-
ferent things (I want to get the most for my car, and you want to pay the least for it); or
(2) people want the same thing (same job, same romantic partner, same room in the house).
In either case, what happens is a struggle over the goals. The perception that there is not
enough to go around—a perception of a scarce resource—intensifies the conflict. More
examples of struggles over content goals are:
∙ Three midlevel managers must come to agreement about which benefits to offer
employees. Jill favors educational benefits, in addition to a basic benefits package;
Chuck favors increased insurance options; and Jim wants to increase flextime options.
All three managers want to keep employees longer but disagree on how to do that.
∙ A divorcing couple tries to construct a visitation schedule that allows each parent
access to their young children but that also fits with each parent’s work schedule.
The specific visitation schedule is the topic goal. Mom may state, “I want the kids on
Sundays,” or “I want to see them one night a week when they are at your house.” Dad
might say, “I want them on alternate weekends.”
∙ A project manager in Singapore who produces computer chips for a Taiwan company
is under pressure from his boss to increase income. The project manager in Taiwan,
who purchases from him, is under pressure to cut costs.
∙ A romantic couple talks about the pros and cons of either being together for the summer
and both working in a restaurant, or one going to Glacier Park to be on a trail crew and
the other to work as a biologist in the River of No Return Wilderness Area. They want
to spend the summer together, but both also want to advance their respective careers.
∙ Mary is going to put her house up for sale because she will be moving to a different
region. She asks $295,000 for the house, knowing that this price will pay for both her
relocation and 3 months of living while she finds a new job. Her content goal means
she can meet other important goals.
Usually, when you ask people what they want in a conflict, you will hear a topic goal
from at least one of the parties—“I just want a different office.” For most people, topic
goals are the easiest to identify and tell others about. The topic, while important and the
beginning point to understanding all disputes, is just one part of the conflict mosaic. Some
writers refer to topic goals as “substantive” or “realistic” goals, but relationship, identity,
and process goals are also real and substantive. When one person says, “That’s not what
we were talking about,” she means, “Let’s get back to the subject,” meaning the topic that
person most wants to discuss.
If you study negotiation in business school or law school, for example, you will focus
almost entirely on topic goals. Mediators in legal disputes, for instance, usually shuttle
back and forth between the parties carrying “offers” of money until they reach a settlement
(Lewicki and Hiam 2006). In later chapters, ways to enrich topic negotiations by including
other kinds of goals will be presented.
Other topics are important in addition to money. If you have a disagreement with your
class instructor over your grade, you are engaging in a topic dispute. You thought you
deserve a B, but the professor graded your essay as a C. Your enactment of the topic con-
flict, whether escalating or seeking joint agreement, will have a crucial impact (Parayitam,
Olsen, and Bao 2010). While topics are important, other crucial goals that arise in conflicts
deserve equal study.
Relational Goals: Who Are We to Each Other?

The key question when assessing the relational goals of a conflict is “Who are we in rela-
tionship to each other?” Relationship goals define how each party wants to be treated by
the other and the amount of interdependence they desire (how they define themselves as
a unit). Additionally, the amount of influence each will have with the other is worked out
through relational interaction.
Differing relational goals lead people into conflict just as differing topics do. People
often experience deep disagreement about the question of who they are to each other. The
following statements, expressed during actual conflicts, express relational concerns:
How You Want to Be Treated by the Other
What I need here is some respect.
So, what happened to our collegial relationship?
What I want is for you to support me when we are in public. I won’t put up with that
kind of abuse.
Well, you don’t have to be nasty about it.
I want to be included on projects that affect me.
I expect professional conduct from everyone on this team.
You told Sandra the report would be in by the due date. Then you called in sick and
had me handle it. This hurts my trust that you will do what you say.
I was hired at the same time Jim was, and now he’s receiving extra training and I am
not. I want access to training as well so I can do a better job.
Mom, this really upsets me because I know you get along better with Samantha.
I want you to take me seriously, and not brush off what I say.
What Kind of Unit Are We?

I thought we were best friends.
Are you committed to this team or not?
We both have our separate lives to live now, so let’s get on with it. What I do is none
of your business.
I just don’t know who we are to each other anymore.
A professional would attend all the team meetings, even when the scheduling is
inconvenient.
Now that we are divorced, we are only parents to the kids and that will continue
indefinitely.
Relational goals will emerge in any ongoing dispute and must be recognized and
managed. When mediators, for instance, ignore relationship concerns, they will experi-
ence more difficulty in helping divorcing partners reach agreement (Donohue, Drake, and
Roberto 1994, 261). Relational goals seem hard to talk about openly. Who talks first, who
talks the most, nonverbal cues such as eye contact, and many other factors give us clues
about relationship goals. For example, if an employee asks for a raise and is told no, espe-
cially with little comment, the supervisor might be warning, on the relational level, “Don’t
push too far. I have the right to tell you what we can afford and what we cannot afford.” If
the employee says, “Why not? This is the best year we’ve ever had!” the relational message
might be, from the employee’s perspective, “I have a right to challenge what you say.”
Leading marriage researchers report, based on longitudinal research about marital
conflict, that only 31% of couples’ problem are resolved over time. Those couples who
do manage to resolve their relationship conflicts become expert at creating conversation
around these unsolved issues. Those two-thirds who do not resolve their relationship issues
may stay tangled in gridlock and continue to hurt each other over their perpetual issues
(Gottman 2014).
Nonverbal communication and the way a request is structured often indicate rela-
tionship dynamics. Think of the different relationship implications of “shut the door”
(speaker has the right to order the other to do something), “Would you mind closing the
door?” (speaker wants the door closed but wants to maintain a pleasant relationship), and
“I wish I could leave the door open, but it’s so noisy” (speaker respects the other person)
(Fisher-Yoshida 2014). In the later example, the other person might respond with a loud
slam, a comment that “I’d rather leave it open because Mira is stopping by,” or “I’m too
hot as it is.” All these interactions indicate complicated relationship dynamics. When
relationship implications indicate conflict, they become as much part of the conflict as
the topics at hand.
Communication regarding relational goals can remain tacit and unspoken. Productive
conflict interaction sometimes requires that a third party or a participant clarify the tacit
relationship definitions. The following are some examples of common relational goals:
∙ A second wife decides not to go to a big family gathering of her husband’s relatives.
She resents the expectation that she is expected to attend his family’s Labor Day
event. She prefers to visit with her family at that time of year. If the husband and wife
have a conflict over this issue, the content goals may be fairly clear: The husband
wants the wife to go to the gathering, whereas the wife wants to visit her family and
not attend the big gathering. The wife’s relational goals might be varied:
She may want equity in the time she spends with her family.
She could be trying to establish her independence from the new family group.
She might want to protect herself from comparison to the first wife.
∙ The husband’s relational goals might be to
Please his family
Introduce his second wife to the family in a relaxed setting
Spend more time with his wife
The wife and husband argue about how much influence they will allow the other to
have, about what kind of a unit they are, and other relational issues. If the couple argues
about content goals only, they will get stuck on issues about plane fares and what they can
afford, or the weather in Georgia around Labor Day, or the cost of a rental car. In ongoing
relationships such as this one, the relationship goals should take precedence. Most people
argue content when they ought to be talking about relational goals—and wonder why they
can’t reach agreement on the topic.
∙ In a staff meeting, Joan insists that “before we decide on the reorganization, I need to
know how committed you all are to staying with the organization.” She needs some
clarity on how people define their relationship to the larger group before plunging ahead
with an extensive reorganization plan. Yet staff members may perceive this question as
threatening—they may not know or be ready to disclose their level of commitment.
∙ Two teenage girls currently are “on the outs” with each other. Jennifer talks about
how JoAnn is “high and mighty,” then JoAnn complains to another friend that
Jennifer has “an abnormal need to be in on everything.” The conflict erupted the
day after JoAnn canceled her plan to go shopping with Jennifer and went with
another friend instead. The content, whether to go shopping together, was not the
issue; the relational strain was.
Relational goals are at the heart of all conflict interactions yet are difficult to specify
from the outside (and sometimes from the inside as well). That is because each person
translates the same event into his or her own relational meaning. When Steve insists that
the best plan for the Fourth of July is to invite friends over for a picnic on the deck, and
Jack insists that it would be a lot more fun to go to the park, get food from the vendors, and
watch the fireworks, they may remain in gridlock until Jack reminds Steve that he always
does the cooking, while Jack plays Frisbee with the guests. If Jack states plainly that he
doesn’t want to do the cooking, they may shift the conflict back to a productive conversa-
tion over the plan (back to content/topic). If Steve continues by saying that it makes no
sense to invite friends to a huge community event, Jack will eventually need to say, “You
know, I don’t want my cooking to become expected. I’d like to mix and mingle, too.”
Then they have the option to come up with a new plan, because the relationship issue was
brought clearly into the conflict.
A conflict is interpreted differently by each participant. Just as we have no success in
translating Ukrainian unless we speak the language, conflict parties must learn the rela-
tional language of their conflict partners. For example, a father and daughter fight many
The daughter scatters books, shoes, and lunch box in the living room while she gets a snack.
Father comes home an hour later, sees the mess, and explodes. Daughter says, “I forgot,” and
father says, “You always forget.”
Content messages: “I forgot.” “You always forget.”
Daughter’s translation: It’s not important. I wish he’d pay attention to something that is
more important to me, like how I hate school.
Father’s translation: She doesn’t listen to me. She is getting too independent to care
what I think.
evenings when she comes home from school and he arrives home from work. Mother gets
pulled into playing peacemaker, trying to urge them to get along better. The following
example demonstrates how an event can trigger such a conflict.
The father wants more responsiveness from his daughter, a key relational issue as
noted by Canevello and Crocker (2010). The difficulty with relational issues is that we
never ultimately know the other person’s translations. Just as the daughter and father have
different translations for these events, usually the conflict parties cannot accurately guess
what the other’s translations will be. When they can estimate the other’s relational needs,
they tend to dismiss them as not important. The friend who remarks “you shouldn’t be
bothered by not being invited to the wedding” is telling you your relational needs are not
important. One technique in conflict management, therefore, is to ask conflict parties to
share their relational translations of the content issues. That might sound like, “What does
this issue mean to you?
Other examples of incorrect or incomplete translations of each other’s messages are
illustrated by the following:
∙ A partner obsessively tracks messages on Facebook posted by a partner. If one part-

ner mistrusts the other, conflict may arise over “what you said,” instead of “what that
post means to me” (Westaby and Redding 2014).
∙ Co-workers bicker each day about whose turn it is to lock up the business, which
requires staying longer at the end of the day. None of the procedures developed seem
to work—people have doctor appointments, or have to pick up a child, or have a
racquetball court reserved, so they have to leave early. This conflict is becoming a
big issue. So far, the only way people resolve the issue is by coming up with creative
excuses for leaving work. Resentments grow daily, factions are created, and pretty
soon, the boss will have to step in and make a new rule, which will displease every-
one. No new procedure (content solution) will work until leftover resentments are
explained and attended to (relational issues). Then new topic goals can be developed
that have a chance of finally working.
∙ A couple argues over who should fill the car with gas each week—each feels she
or he is doing more work than the other and wants credit for what is already being
done. But the man argues that he shouldn’t have to do all the work on the car, and the
woman argues that he doesn’t notice now much work she does for him, such as taking
clothes to the cleaners. (Yes, this is a conventional, old-fashioned couple.) Not only
are they arguing about content, they are mistranslating the crucial relational goals
(which remain unstated).
Relational goals also form in reaction to the other party’s apparent goals. What I want
from you is the result of what I think you think about me. Once a conflict is triggered, each
party reacts to what he or she thinks the other is doing or wanting. When Sandy says, “I
won’t take that kind of treatment from Jason,” she is reacting to her guess about how Jason
will act in the future, too. Once the conflict spiral begins, each person responds to an image
of the other that may not be accurate. When Jason replies, “You are just trying to control
me,” he states his relational reaction to Sandy. In this manner, relational goals escalate into
polarized states.
Application 3.2 Relational Goals
Take two important but different relationships to you, for example, a parent, intimate, lifelong
friend, work associate, or other relationship. Think of a time you were upset at how he or she
treated you. Then, list the “relational issues” that arose. For example, look at the samples of rela-
tional issues and amount of interdependence examples we gave above and see if you can identify
your key relational issues, as well as probably relationship issues of the other. Learning to take the
perspective of the other is a key skill in conflict resolution.
Let’s summarize some principles about relational interests and goals.

∙ Every statement carries a relational message.
∙ We each translate or interpret relational messages differently.
∙ Relational interests carry more urgency than topic interests, if left unaddressed.
∙ One’s relational interests are triggered in reaction to our interpretation of the other’s
behavior.
Good, clear relationships make the topic issues much easier to resolve, bring synergy
to a conversation, and enhance your positive identity.
One more example of a relational statement will clarify this issue. Ali, who works
for Sam in a high-tech organization, after a meeting with Sam, says to a colleague, “Wow,
one day I get the ‘good Sam’ and the next I get the ‘bad Sam.’ When I meet with him, I
just sit still and try to figure out if he will be respectful to me or blow up. He has me so
unnerved that I may transfer to another department.” Such statements reflect the impor-
tance of relational goals and how they affect performance (Lau and Cobb 2010). “We don’t
see the other person as the villain because they disagree with us; we see them as the villain
because of how they treat us” (Harper 2004, 67).
Identity, or Face-Saving, Goals: Who Am I in This Interaction?

People in conflict try to maintain their sense of self. When one feels misunderstood, and
then blamed, conflict turns into a high-intensity struggle over a scarce resource—in this
case, a positive sense of self and the knowledge that one is viewed positively by others.
Identity conflicts are often hard to identify and the conflict progresses, since they are usu-
ally represented as disputes over tangible resources (Ellis 2006; Rothman 1997). The key
question in assessing identity, or face-saving, goals is “Who am I in this particular inter-
action?” or “How may my self-identity be protected or repaired in this particular conflict?”
In addition to content and relational goals, identity goals include specific desires to
maintain not only one’s self-esteem but also one’s sense of self-identity. Identity needs
have been extensively discussed as facework or saving face (Folger, Poole, and Stutman
2008; Goffman 1967). Often people will say, with frustration, “What are we fighting
about?” or “I don’t know what is going on!” Many times, a puzzling or maddening inter-
action makes sense if you see one or more of the parties trying to present a positive face
(Moeller, Crocker, and Bushman 2009). You know you are confronting an identity struggle
when you hear the following kinds of statements:
∙ “I am not that guy. I am not the kind of person who would ever do such a thing.”
∙ “You say I ignored you and would not speak to you. I find it very hard to believe that
could be true. I never remember ignoring you.”
∙ “I am upset that you think I would have disclosed your plan to resign. I keep
confidences.”
∙ “What can I do to get you to believe that I am telling the truth?”
When identity or face-saving becomes an issue, people are less flexible and engage
in destructive moves (Ellis 2006; Folger et al. 2008). As Brown (1977) said years ago, “In
some instances, protecting against loss of face becomes so central an issue that it swamps
the importance of the tangible issues at stake and generates intense conflicts that can
impede progress toward agreement and increase substantially the costs of conflict reso-
lution” (175). Many conflicts hinge on the parties’ keen interest in face issues such as
respect, esteem, validation, honor, and dignity (Totman 2014).
When people can clarify their identity, more cooperative problem solving comes
about (Bechtoldt, DeDreu, Nijstad, and Zapf 2010). The athlete who says, “I don’t use
drugs because I’m not that kind of person” is clarifying her identity. If one person says,
“I did not intend to dismiss your idea; it’s that I disagree with you,” and the other replies,
“I believe you,” the two people may be able to move to content issues because they are
not struggling over personality or bad character. Simply listing the answers to “who am
I?” will be a good start for identifying your identity. These identity statements often arise
when people are talking about themselves, and are constructed by us in our communica-
tion exchanges.
competent likeable responsible trustworthy

best friend logical enthusiastic well-organized
reliable family member friendly expert leader
Another way to find your identity concerns is the exercise in Application 3.3.
The importance of identity, or saving face, can be seen when large corporations or
individuals are sued in court. In some circumstances, they can enter an “Alford Plea,”
which means, “I don’t admit guilt, but based on the evidence presented I think I would be
convicted.” Thus, we read news reports of organizations saying, “We didn’t do it, and we
paid the plaintiff $15,000,000.” On one hand this seems absurd, but on the other the prac-
tice illustrates the importance of saving face. The issue is no longer “did I break the law,”
but “how can I protect how I see myself and others see me?” The most extreme example
of this is people on death row. Often, as they are being escorted to execution they will say,
“I am innocent,” or “I am a good person.” We need to have a positive self-identity, even if
it doesn’t correspond to what we have done.
In each conflict interaction, individuals either save face or lose or damage face. Self-
esteem can be seen as a scarce resource. This is another way of saying that people’s sense
of self is often tenuous, not fixed. Few people are so full of self-esteem that they do not
care about looking good in conflicts, or being seen as intelligent, honorable, correct, or
justified. Likewise, when your opponent begins to perceive that you are damaging his
or her sense of self, the stakes get higher. Facework occurs for each party throughout
Application 3.3 My Criticism Log
Keep track of all the negative thoughts you have about people in your world over a few days and
jot them down in your notebook or diary. You don’t need to track the type of relationship, who the
other is, or anything else—just list the negative thoughts you have or comments you make. Some
examples are “He is so stupid,” “I can’t believe how incompetent she is,” “He is so mean to every-
one,” and “She is just power hungry.”
1. List all these criticisms of others, then in groups of three or four, read them aloud to others
(don’t worry about how you sound; just say them even though they may usually be socially
unacceptable).
2. Members of your group help you identify your two or three main “themes” for your criticisms
of others. Most of us have two or three main identity dimensions that arise in criticisms of oth-
ers. Put these “themes” in nonjudgmental or positive terms.
For example, medical doctors often say things about their colleagues such as “He isn’t
the sharpest knife in the drawer,” “She didn’t do very well in medical school,” “I just don’t
know how he became a doctor given he can’t process all the details,” and “He isn’t very
bright.” The theme of “intelligence” is clear.
3. Discuss with the group your main identity “themes” and how they predict with whom you will
have conflict or struggles. As you might guess, when others don’t protect or value our identity,
a conflict will erupt with them.
the conflict (see Figure 3.2). In face-saving conversations, people often give accounts
of what has happened, or what the interaction meant, as a way to “repair” one’s identity
after a personal attack (Buttny 2000). “Changing one’s mind about human nature is hard
work, and changing one’s mind for the worse about oneself is even harder” (Kahneman
2011, 172).
Because people often act out of self-interest, what normally happens as a dispute pro-
gresses is people protect their own face, or identity, while damaging the other’s face, or
identity. Productive conflict management demands that we attend to neglected important
areas. One study analyzed communication in three cases of hostage negotiations.
Figure 3.2 Dimensions of Saving and Damaging Face
Self Other
Save Save
Save
self’s other’s
face
face face
Damage Damage
Damage
self’s other’s
face
face face
The cases involved three different people: (1) an armed, suicidal man barricaded inside
a TV station; (2) a man suffering extreme emotional instability who was barricaded in
a house; and (3) an armed man holding his children hostage. What emerged in the taped
FBI transcripts was the necessity to let the men save face while working to get the hos-
tages released. The outside negotiators had to restore the armed man’s face, by saying such
things as “I think you are an extremely strong person for how you have handled this so far,”
“You’ve got a whole lot of people who care about you,” and “The people you are trying to
help, they need you” (Rogan and Hammer 1994). Sometimes face is saved ahead of time,
and other times it is restored after there has been some loss, like in the hostage situation.
Figure 3.2 also shows how someone can damage one’s own face. Though it seems
unlikely, people often say negative things about themselves. When you say, “I’m just a
terrible parent,” or “I’m a lousy student,” or “What does someone my age think he/she is
doing going back to school?” those statements are damaging to one’s own face, or identity.
Such statements may also be made in the hope that the listener will say something kind.
In the hostage situations, the armed men were, in effect, saying, “I’m just crazy,” and the
job of the outside negotiators was to get the men to start to see their own behavior as not
quite so damaging to their view of themselves. Once face is restored, one is free to give up
extreme defensive tactics, such as holding hostages.
People try to avoid loss of face by defending their self-images against humiliation,
embarrassment, exclusion, demeaning communication, or general treatment as unimport-
ant or low-power individuals. When people attack others’ face, they may belittle, scorn,
ridicule, taunt, mock, or overtly reject them (Totman 2014). Attempts to solve a problem or
stop a conflict by causing another person to lose a sense of dignity and worth never work
in the long run. One researcher calls it the “identity trap”—when our identity issues disable
us from seeing constructive paths of problem solving (Donohue, in press).
Remember the four horsemen discussed in Chapter 1, and how many destructive con-
flict cycles result from this kind of destructive communication. Overuse of power may
temporarily solve a problem. When losers are created, however, the losing group or indi-
vidual waits for a time and place to “make it right,” either by getting back at the winners,
by subverting the ongoing process, or by leaving the relationship, work setting, or group.
Demeaning communication creates ongoing pain and dissatisfaction, and the conflict
remains unresolved at a deep level.
Face-saving and giving others face are extremely important in all cultures but often
take precedence over topic issues in Asian cultures. It is now well known in the busi-
ness community that entirely different kinds of negotiations are required in Asian cultures.
Attempting to support the others’ face and avoiding at all costs the loss of face of the
other require great attention. These are part of the requirements of polite interaction among
many Pacific Rim cultures. One would never pin an opponent down or attempt to prove
him or her wrong.
People, especially when they feel low power, may assume that escalation is the best
route in conflict. Take the case of employees who are convinced the management in
their company is incompetent. They want to publish their complaints in the local paper.
While at first, this might seem effective, if they do that, the managers will lose face and
undoubtedly respond in a negative way. Almost always, when you ask people the best way
to handle complaints about them, they prefer it to be in private and not publicly aired—
saving face for all.
You can tell that attempts to save face are being employed when you or others engage
in the following kinds of communication (adapted from Folger et al. 2008):
1. Claim unjust intimidation. Topic goals take second place to this specific kind of
relational goal—to stand up to another’s attempt to take over. People accuse others of
taking advantage, declare their resistance to unjust treatment, and often seek support
from outside parties when they are being treated unjustly.
2. Refuse to step back from a position. A person who no longer feels comfortable with
an earlier position may choose to stay with it, even in light of new information,
because looking foolish or inconsistent results in losing face. Thus, topic and larger
relational goals are set aside to avoid looking weak, ill informed, or incompetent. In
a community in a Western mountain state, water rights became a major conflict for
a group of summer-home owners in the mountains. A city tried to claim water rights
to a small creek that flowed through the homeowners’ property. One man resisted
the efforts of a majority to build a legal defense fund because he had said at a meet-
ing, “I’m not going to pay some lawyer to fritter away my money on something we
can’t stop anyway!” As several summers wore on, this embattled individual refused
to step back from his position of “no money to lawyers” and “we can’t make any dif-
ference anyway.” He wrote letters to others in the homeowners’ group, bitterly pro-
testing the intimidation by the majority group in assessing a fee for each homeowner
to build the legal fund. Clearly, as new information came in strongly supporting the
efforts to fight the city’s water claim, as when the district court judge supported the
summer-home group, the man who was fighting to avoid losing face found himself
in a dilemma—to fight further might be to lose face even more. Eventually, he pre-
tended he had supported the legal efforts all along but just thought the fees were too
high. This was a face-regaining effort, and the homeowners’ group wisely dropped
the issue so the man could be part of the community again. For him, the content and
relational goals had become temporarily unimportant.
3. Suppress conflict issues. People also try to save face by refusing to admit that a
conflict exists, since to acknowledge the conflict might mean that events are out of
control, which might make people feel uncomfortable and incompetent. In the water
rights conflict discussed previously, several longtime friends of the dissident home-
owner said things like, “Well, Kent is just cantankerous. He’ll get over it,” or “Well,
these things bring up strong feelings.” The association had few effective means of
conflict resolution. Many felt that to acknowledge conflict at all would mean that
their group was in danger of losing a sense of camaraderie and community spirit.
One board member tried to schedule a meeting that the dissident individual could not
attend because of his travel schedule—an attempt to suppress or avoid the issue of
face, or identity, needs.
In productive, ongoing relationships, several kinds of communication will help restore
lost face or prevent further loss of face. You can increase flexibility and problem solving
if you:
1. Help others increase their sense of self-esteem. Treat others with goodwill, giving
them the benefit of the doubt even when they have been belligerent or unproductive.
You might say things like, “Everyone gets upset sometimes. We can get past this,”
or “You must not have had all the information I had. You couldn’t have known about
the Grandview project yet, as I did.” Even saying something like, “I know you were
doing what you thought was best” gives the other person the benefit of the doubt and
is usually true. People do tend to do what they think is best at the time.
2. Avoid giving directives. Parents can tell their teenage children, “I want you to honor
the house rules we’ve discussed. I want to be able to trust you and not worry about
monitoring you—you’re almost grown and can make decisions for yourself.” This
approach is much better than “If you don’t follow the rules we’ve set up you can find
somewhere else to live!” As will be discussed later, it’s better to avoid direct threats
and to use persuasion and face-saving communication instead. No one wants to be
pushed around. Even if you have “right on your side,” it may not always be wise to be
“right,” as this creates winners and losers.
3. Listen carefully to others and take their concerns into account. Even when you don’t
have to listen because you have the power to make a decision independently, listen-
ing and taking care of others’ concerns as best you can helps them feel included,
approved of, and respected.
4. Ask questions so the other person can examine his or her goals. By asking questions
instead of attacking, you give the other person a chance to change in the interaction
instead of entrenching or digging in (note the warlike metaphor).
In conclusion, helping others protect their self-identity as a good, worthy, and compe-
tent human being goes far toward helping resolve conflict by allowing people to focus on
goals other than self-protection.
Process Goals: What Communication Process Will Be Used?

The key question when assessing process goals is, “What communication process would
work best?” Many times people disagree about how to formally or informally conduct a
conflict. A group might argue over the merits of consensus versus voting. Intimates often
disagree about whether strong emotions hurt the process of conflict or not, or whether the
partners should stay up and talk when one is sleepy or wait until morning. Work groups go
back and forth about whether to send out opinion questionnaires, talk informally in a series
of meetings, delegate certain decisions, or put off deciding certain issues. All these relate
to the process of conflict interaction and will impact content, identity, and relational goals.
Some examples of process goals are
giving each one equal talking informally before not allowing the
talk time deciding children to speak
consensus having high power voting
decisions made by person decide
subgroup secret ballot
Different processes of communication may change the relationships involved. For

instance, minorities may be given more power with a free flow of communication, whereas
higher-power people might maintain their power with a more tightly organized form of
interaction, such as one that relies heavily on written communication.
Process goals arise in all kinds of contexts. For example, deciding on which judge
hears your case is a crucial question in the law (Bush 1984). In the workplace, people want
processes that enhance equality and open participation. People struggle in organizations
and small groups over the pros and cons of consensus, informal discussion, information
gathering, delegated decisions, written summaries, voting, and parliamentary procedure.
Process goals also vary in different cultures, with some being quite authority oriented
and others relying on equal participation. In Native American tribal politics, a long process
of consensus building is often required before a decision is considered valid by the tribe.
The tribal members delegate less to their elected officials than do Western European cul-
tures (Broome and Cromer 1991).
In addition to changing the levels of influence, different processes encourage or dis-
courage creative solutions. Quick, well-defined processes help you move forward but may
decrease creative, innovative solutions. Longer processes can build in time for reflection
and evaluation and improve the chances for creativity. Thus, different processes affect the
conflict outcome as well. For instance, one couple struggled over when to buy a house.
The wife wanted to buy a house in the next few months, whereas the husband wanted to
save more money before they looked seriously. The husband suggested that they first dis-
cuss with each other their financial goals and then talk about the house. This discussion
resulted in the wife’s decision that she, too, wanted to wait at least a year so that they could
better their financial situation. By changing from content issues, such as the interest rate,
the availability of houses in the desired neighborhood, or the likely tax consequences, to a
different process, such as talking about other goals, the couple changed the relational con-
flict (“I’ve got to get her/him to listen to me”) to a mutually acceptable process about time.
Large public meetings are arenas for process conflict. People who know they are in
the minority or low power often argue for parliamentary procedure, which provides more
options for hearing from the minority than does, for instance, informal large-group discus-
sion followed by voting.
Whatever the context, process conflicts often change when individuals feel heard.
People drop their obstruction to a certain process if they are assured of being heard and
counted (face/identity issues) and when they see their content and relational goals are
being protected. As in struggles over differing content, relational, and identity goals, pro-
cess conflicts blend into the other conflicting goals.
The Overlapping Nature of TRIP Goals

Now that each type of goal has been explained and illustrated, we can deepen our analysis
of goals in conflict. A number of features about conflict goals need to be highlighted.
Feature 1: Not all types of goals emerge in all disputes. Disputes may emerge without
process issues. In the workplace, for example, there may be a heated disagreement between
two supervisors, yet neither wants to change any processes such as how frequently they
meet, or who is included. Similarly, many conflicts have no content issues. Two friends
may be locked in a struggle over how responsive they are to one another; a relational issue
that doesn’t involve content. It is often puzzling to parents how their children can fight
for hours over “nothing”—no identifiable content issues. But rest assured, if there is a
struggle and no content issues are apparent, the struggle is about identity, process, and/or
relational issues.
Figure 3.3 Content Goals Paramount
T Get a better grade.
R Professor takes me
seriously.
I
At least I tried.
Feature 2: Interests and goals overlap with one another and differ in primacy (Avivi,
Laurenceau, and Carver 2009; Wilson, Kunkel, Robson, Olufowote, and Soliz 2009).
When you begin a dispute over your grade (the topic goal), you also want to be treated well
by the professor (the relational goal) and want to think that you tried hard (the identity, or
face-saving, goal). Figure 3.3 demonstrates how this might look from your side.
As you can see, you begin a discussion with the professor with the topic issue para-
mount in your mind; the relational and identity issues are not as important to you. Note
therefore that even though they differ in prominence, different goal types emerge.
The professor shown in Figure 3.4, on the other hand, may be most concerned about
relational issues (“I don’t pull rank”). She also shares a topic issue (“I want students to get
better grades”) with her identity issue being seen as “treating students fairly.”
In a different situation, a process or procedural goal might be utmost in one party’s
mind. You are a member of a departmental student group and would like to run for presi-
dent. You were out of town last weekend, and this Tuesday in class someone said, “Hey,
what do you think about Stan being president of the student club? We had an election last
night.” For you, the procedural issue of not being notified of a meeting when others knew
you wanted to run for president is the paramount issue, as shown in Figure 3.5. Note that
in this case, the procedural issue looms largest, followed by identity and relational issues
of equal weight.
Figure 3.4 Relational and Identity Goals Paramount
R I don’t pull rank.
T I want students to
get better grades.
I
Treating students fairly
is part of who I am.
Figure 3.5 Process Goals Paramount
It’s not OK to not

P
notify members.
R I won’t let them do
that to me.
I
I thought I was more
important than that.
Feature 3: Identity and relational issues are the “drivers” of disputes; they underlie
topic and process issues. As you listen to people describe conflicts, you begin to notice a
pattern—identity and relational issues carry the most energy. In most business disputes,
for example, regardless of the topic issue, someone will be concerned about trust, treat-
ment, or communication—relational issues. Further, the face-saving and identity issues
discussed earlier anchor all disputes. Because we are human beings, our inherent view of
our self drives disputes. Think back to when you were a kid and not chosen to play or were
excluded from some high school activity. A typical response might have been, “I didn’t
want to be part of the stupid team anyway (relational) and besides, I’m a good reader and
will just go home and finish the great book I’m reading (identity).”
In addition, relational and identity concerns will almost always overlap—who you are
with others is related to how the relationship is conducted. Figure 3.6 illustrates which
goals are almost always present and, in fact, drive almost all disputes.
Many people see identity and relational goals as “intangible” because they are dif-
ficult to specify, yet even though they may be difficult to put in specific terms, they never-
theless are the key drivers in all conflicts. In our work as mediators in hundreds of disputes
we have never seen a dispute without relational and identity issues!
Figure 3.6 Relational and Identity Goals Propelling a Dispute
T P
I R
Powerful relational and identity issues underlie all conflicts, although they often are acted
out indirectly. For example, it may not be common in your family to say, “I feel excluded,” but
rather, family members may watch others at the family picnic, see who is left alone, and seek
them out for a talk. In an organization, it may not be within the cultural norms to say, “I don’t
feel very valued here,” but the president may give you access to the boardroom for meetings
as a way to indicate your organizational importance. Similarly, watch little kids at play. One of
the kids may be left out, and another may turn to that child and say, “Want to play dolls with
me?” Such a move is both a relational and identity tactic. Another example of meeting issues
indirectly was when Bill, one of the co-authors of this book, was 12 and not getting any time
with his dad, who was busy running a small business. Bill was hyperactive and on the verge
of delinquency. An observant neighbor noticed him, and offered him a summer job driving
his tractor. Many relational and identity needs were filled for Bill sitting in the Wyoming
weather on the John Deere tractor. If Francis had approached Bill’s dad and said, “I think your
kid needs some attention, but I know you are working 14 hours a day, so how about I give
him a job on my ranch this summer?” Bill’s dad would have been insulted. But the indirect
offer to help, by giving Bill a job, avoided a conflict with the father and allowed Francis to
give neighborly assistance. The neighbor saved face with Bill’s father while helping the boy.
By being alert to the “relational translations” someone else might make, you can serve
both relational and face-saving needs indirectly through content. Indirect, topic-only solu-
tions do not work in intense conflict situations, however. The more severe and strained the
conflict, the less satisfying the content approaches will be. This leads to the fourth feature
of conflict goals.
Feature 4: In a serious dispute, topic-only solutions are rarely satisfying to conflict par-
ties. If you know someone who has ever won a lawsuit, ask him or her, “How do you feel
about the other party and the process you went through?” You probably will hear anger,
frustration, and exasperation, with the “winner” usually launching into a tirade about both the
other party and the other party’s attorney. That is because (unless it is a very unusual case)
only topic issues have been addressed, and the relational and identity needs feel respected, to
be listened to, and to be told that you are a reasonable person have not been addressed. During
the dispute there is often so much threat to each person’s identity that content solutions alone
are not satisfying. In this type of situation, if an outsider says, “You got $150,000; what more
do you want?” the plaintiff will usually answer, “An apology.” The desired apology, address-
ing relational and identity goals, trumps the content goal of money.
Feature 5: Conflict parties often specialize in one kind of goal. Conflict parties in
ongoing struggles often highlight one type of goal and limit themselves to it, as in the fol-
lowing dialogues:
In the Organization
New hire, just out of university: (thinks) I will stay at this desk until my manager leaves, no
matter what, so she will know I am dedicated and serious
(relationship and identity goals.)
Manager: (thinking about Amanda, the new hire.) She isn’t efficient,
her desk is piled up, and I don’t know what she does all day.
I hired her to come up with marketing ideas for the twenty-
somethings, and she is not initiating anything. I may have
made a bad choice in hiring her. (topic and process concerns.)
In the Family
Grandfather: My daughter is just not a good mother to her kids—she needs to learn how
to be a better mother. The kids should be cleaner, and they are always late to
school. Those kids deserve a hands-on mom. (topic specialization)
His daughter: [the mother of two small boys] I am just not willing to have the kids spend time
at their grandparents’ house until Dad learns how to treat people better. He
only criticizes the kids and me and never says anything positive. (relational and
identity specialization)
In these conflicts, the participants separate and specialize—one party on topic goals
and the other on relational goals. This split tends to keep the conflict going—as the topic
specialist continues to expect better “performance” from the other, the relational specialist
becomes more and more critical of the treatment he or she receives.
Specialization in either topic or relational goals often reflects the parties’ relative power.
All too often, high-power parties are the ones who focus exclusively on the topic. Failure to
acknowledge relational goals may be due to a lack of skill or can show hostility, or lack of
caring. Focusing only on topic devalues the other person and his or her concerns. The most
powerful group member usually wins by structuring the conflict and ignoring troubling
relational issues from lower-power people. Topic discussion is simpler and requires less
investment in the other person. Similarly, lower-power members may wish to bring in goals
other than topic goals as a power-balancing mechanism. If a lower-power person can get the
higher-power person to pay attention to relational, process, and identity goals, the lower-
power person is “empowered” and becomes a legitimate party in the conflict.
Feature 6: Goals may emerge in a different form. Sensitivity to the different types of goals
allows you to recognize when one type of goal is being acted out in terms of another. Any one
of the four can come to the surface in a different form and with different intensity (Kerwin
et al. 2011). Topic goals emerge as relational, identity, or procedural goals. Relational goals
can emerge as topic, identity, or procedural goals, and so on—12 possible substitutions exist.
One of the most common is illustrated in Figure 3.7: a relational goal carried by topic.
Many times conflict parties are simply unable to identify their relational goals. Instead,
they act them out at the topic level. For example, you may feel devalued by your boss, so
you wage an ongoing, persuasive campaign to change the performance evaluation system
used by the organization. Or you think your brother does not respect you, so you argue
Figure 3.7 Relational Goals Emerging in Topic Form
Topic Open
Relational Hidden
“Stay for Dinner”
Connie, Sharon, and Janene, seniors at a university, share an old house near campus. They have
known each other for years; they grew up in the same town. Their roommate relationship has, thus
far, been fairly smooth, although recently an issue has emerged. Janene eats two meals a day on
campus at the food service. Connie and Sharon like to cook, so they prepare their meals at home.
They have invited Janene to share their evening meal several times, and Janene has occasionally
accepted. It’s Thursday night, Janene is rushing to get to the food service before it closes, and the
following dialogue takes place:
Connie: Hey, Janene, you might as well stay and eat with us. It’s late—you’ll never make it.
Janene: No big deal. If I miss it, I’ll get a hamburger or something. [She rushes out the door.]
Connie: [to Sharon] That’s the last time I’m going to ask her to eat with us. She thinks she is
too good to be bothered with staying around here with us.
A few weeks later, Connie and Sharon find someone who is willing to room with them,
share cooking, and pay a higher rate. So they approach Janene and say, “We are struggling
with finances, and we have someone who will eat here, share expenses, and save us all
money on food. Would you rather pay a higher rate or move out?”
that he doesn’t have the training to handle your aging mom’s finances. You may insist that
a work team view YouTube videos on trust and vulnerability, because you mistrust one
member of the team. In “Stay for Dinner,” notice the shift in goals. Conversation about
Janene’s reasons for eating on campus might have de-escalated this conflict. Janene’s par-
ents bought a food plan for her to help her out with expenses, and Janene did not want to
take advantage of her roommates’ cooking.
As you can see, this dispute began with two people feeling excluded and quickly
degenerated into a topic-only conflict. Because relational issues were ignored, a longtime
friendship was lost.
Identity conflicts, as well, often erupt on the topic level, as shown in Figure 3.8.
“I’m right/Are not/Am too” is an example of an identity-driven dispute that gets played
out on the topic level. Each person starts by wanting to feel right (identity, or face-saving).
Watch what quickly happens.
Figure 3.8 Identity Goals Emerging in Topic Form
Topic Open
Identity Hidden
“I’m Right/Are Not/Am Too!”
Duane and Kathy are going to a movie. Duane is driving, and they both notice a red car
passing them.
Duane: That’s a Subaru, like the kind I was telling you about.
Kathy: No, I think it was a Toyota. But it’s pretty.
Duane: No, it was a Subaru!
They argue back and forth about the rightness of their claims. Neither is a car expert, but both are
adamant, using sarcasm and biting humor.
Kathy: Well, you may be right, but I still think it was a Toyota.
Duane: Look, I know I’m right!
Kathy: You never think I know anything!
Duane: You don’t know anything about cars. Blow it off. It’s not important.
Kathy sits silently for 10 minutes.
The couple will continue to argue about identifying cars, but both have stated relation-
ship concerns. Kathy feels she is not given credit as a knowledgeable person. Duane states
that he needs to be right on things he knows more about. The couple appears to be negotiat-
ing about who has preeminence in certain areas of expertise. They haven’t worked out how
to “call off the conflict” or how to ask for more respect from each other. They are likely to
find other topics to fight over until the relationship is addressed directly. The following box
presents two openings that might start them off more productively.
Duane: It bugs me when you challenge me about something I know a lot about. I start
thinking you don’t think I’m very smart.
or
Kathy: Duane, I’m not that interested in Toyotas, or Subarus either. But I’ve been thinking
that you get the last word on most topics we discuss. It makes me want never to
give in—even if I know I’m wrong.
Goals Change in Interaction
TRIP goals are like a lava lamp, glowing, changing, altering, and always moving.
—Leanne Eleff, 2001
Goals don’t stay static but undergo transformation before, during, and after disputes.
They will emerge as one type and, during the course of the dispute, change into another
type. Even after the struggle is over, goals will shift and change. Relationships are made
and transformed in communication with each other (Fisher-Yoshida 2014).
Eleanor is a senior in a conflict resolution class. She believes the grade on her last
essay was too low.
The Bad Grade
Eleanor to her friend: That instructor has it in for me. He continues to ignore me in class
and on the last assignment, he didn’t understand my point, so he
gave me a C. I’m going to challenge my grade. Eleanor, thinking to
herself as she waits to see the instructor: Ok, when I go in there, I’m
going to get him to understand how hard I worked on the analysis
paper, and that he missed my main point, which is that my conflict
styles change in context. I’ll ask him to raise my grade.
Eleanor in the office: Mr. Jones, I would like it if you would consider changing my grade on
the first essay question. I don’t think you understood what I was try-
ing to write.
Mr. Jones: Have a seat. Why don’t you tell me what you were saying about your
changing conflict styles (she does this).
Mr. Jones: I get what you were saying. However, I asked you to fill out the style
instrument, give three examples of your conflict styles, and decide
which one you would call your “default” approach. You did not do
that last piece of the assignment. I’m OK with your rewriting the
paper, and then I’ll give you the average of the two grades.
Eleanor: That’s fair. (He’s being reasonable and I see that I ignored part of the
assignment.)
Note how her goals changed. She began thinking the instructor was not paying atten-
tion to her in class and did not understand her style paper (relational and identity goals) and
a content goal (raise my grade). Because the instructor treated her with respect by asking a
question and listening to her, her relationship and content goals changed. She no longer felt
disrespected, so her content goal (change my grade) dropped out of her primary consider-
ation. Such change and flow are typical in conflict situations.
One way to look at this flow of goals is to specify how goals change across time from
(1) prospective (before interacting with the person), to (2) transactive goals (during the
interaction itself), to (3) retrospective (after the conflict). It is important to be able to track
the changes in both your and the other person’s goals—they continue to evolve over time.
Prospective Goals
The word goals most commonly connotes intentions people hold before they engage in
conflict. For instance, Sally might say to Dorothy, “What do you hope to accomplish at the
board meeting? The last one was awful—so much confusion and disorganization.” Dorothy
might reply, “I want to sort out who’s in charge of the budget decisions and how we’re sup-
posed to come up with $5,000 more next year than we took in this year. I don’t want to take
responsibility for more fund-raising.” Dorothy has stated her prospective goals—those
she can identify before the board meeting begins. Simply stated, she hopes that the board
will decide who makes budget decisions and delegate fund-raising to some responsible
party other than her, the board chair. The other board members will come to the meeting
with their own prospective goals. An effectively managed meeting will take account of all
the prospective goals members bring, whether they are readily stated or not.
Taking the time to clarify what you want from a particular interaction lays the ground-
work for more effective conflict. The expectation of collaboration establishes a positive
tone for the discussion. Keep in mind that your prospective goals work better as a begin-
ning plan, not a hardened set of “must have” goals.
When you clarify your prospective goals, you
∙ Gain clarity about what you want from a meeting.
∙ Prepare yourself for a discussion.
∙ Show respect for your own and others’ time and presence.
During the discussion, your goals continue to shift and change during the transaction
itself. You contribute to constructive conflict management when you acknowledge the change,
saying something like, “When I came to this meeting I was certain that I wanted nothing to
do with fund-raising. I wanted to guide the organization’s overall mission, but not be tasked
with fund-raising. As we talk, I see that I know some of the donors well, and it makes sense
for me to make contact with them. Let’s get specific about who will contact which donors.”
Transactive Goals
In many conflicts goals are partly unknown, only to become clear as the conflict unfolds.
For example, during a struggle with your housemate over financial misunderstandings, you
discover that what you really want is to move—which you did not know you felt until the
argument began. You have just stumbled onto a transactive goal—one discovered during
the conflict itself.
Respectful conversation, or genuine dialogue, creates the space for change to emerge as
conversation continues. Each step along the way influences what will happen next, as interde-
pendent relationships develop. When each conversation partner pays attention to self, others,
and the relationship, surprising outcomes can emerge from conflict (Fisher-Yoshida 2014).
You may have been absolutely certain that you wanted an assistant to carry out the new
project your boss assigned to you, but during a staff meeting you may change your demand for
an assistant. You now say that you can do the work without an assistant for at least 6 months.
What happened? Did you back down? Did the boss win? Did you have “no guts”? More likely,
you became aware of the interdependent nature of your work team and decided to change your
demand, given the needs of the entire group. You may have been given recognition for the
difficulty of your job. Maybe your boss said in front of the group, “I’d like to give you an assis-
tant, but I don’t have the money in the budget and don’t know where I can get it” (a face-saving
message). Your conflict goals changed because of the communication event.
A school board member was trying to decide how to handle her strong opposition
to the closed, or “executive,” sessions of the board that her colleagues on the board sup-
ported. She discussed the incipient conflict with friends ahead of time, rehearsing what
she was going to do (prospective goal). When the next board meeting arrived, she did not
give her prearranged speech. She compromised and agreed with her colleagues that some
closed meetings, in limited circumstances, were acceptable. This change is an example of
transactive goal development.
If you are a person who says, “I don’t know what I want until we get a chance to
discuss it,” you understand transactive goals. The following box exemplifies the way new
goals develop as a conflict progresses. Note that the two friends see themselves as interde-
pendent and that they value their relationship as well as solving the immediate topic issue
(finding the lost silver pendant).
Verbal Communication Goal Analysis
First phone call:

Amy: You know that silver pendant I Amy’s #1 prospective goal is to get the
loaned you? I guess you didn’t pendant back from Janice.
return it with the rest of the jew-
elry, because I can’t find it.
Janice: I don’t have it. I remember that I Janice’s #1 prospective goal is to convince
didn’t borrow it because I knew Amy that she is not responsible for the dis-
it was valuable to you. You must appearance of the necklace, a goal that is
have misplaced it somewhere. incompatible with Amy’s prospective goal.
But I’ll look.
Second phone call:
Amy: I still can’t find it—I’m getting Amy maintains prospective goal #1 by esca-
panicky. I’ll stay on the phone lating her previous goal statement. Amy and
while you go look. Please check Janice still have incompatible goals.
everywhere it might be.
Janice: You’re upset about the necklace, Transactive goal #2: Affirm the relationship in
and I don’t know what I can do spite of the loss of the necklace.
since I honestly don’t think I have
it. But what really concerns me is
that you are upset with me. You
mean a lot to me, and this hurts.
Amy: I know. I really don’t want to put Amy reaffirms transactive goal #2, making it
it all on you. I’m glad you under- mutual. She agrees to discuss, affirming the
stand, though. You know, John relationship as a new, additional goal.
gave me that necklace.
Janice: Well, what can we do to get this Janice restates transactive goal #2 and
solved? I feel awful. offers transactive goal #3: Find the necklace
together without damaging the relationship.
Amy: I’ll hang up and we’ll both go look Amy advances transactive goal #4: Share the
everywhere and then report back. responsibility with a new plan of action.
Janice: OK. And then we’ll come up with Janice accepts transactive goal #4 and
something if we don’t find it advances transactive goal #5: We will keep
right away. Cross your fingers. working until we solve this problem.
We shift to negative goals when we can’t “get what we want.” Frustration can lead to
comments that belittle, injure, or try to damage the other. This shift from the original topic
or content goal to a negative relationship or identity goal characterizes the destructive con-
flict. In diagram form, the goal change occurs as follows:
1. You want a promotion:

2. Promotion
3. When you ask her for a promotion, your supervisor says, “No way. You aren’t
going to get a promotion as long as I’m the boss here. Your work has been substan-
dard, not worthy of promotion.” Your boss interferes with your original goal, and
you begin to focus most of your attention on her interference and your attempts to
gain power.
You Promotion
Supervisor
4. You then begin to lose sight of your original goal and spend energy trying to get
even with the boss. You talk to people at home and at work about her, tell others how
biased she is, spread rumors at work, and do other things to undercut her authority.
You Supervisor
This example describes a typical pattern of goal shifting in a conflict. What began as
a topic goal, getting a promotion, turns into a relational contest between the two of you—
you shift from a positive topic goal to a negative relational goal.
Such shifts occur often. Two business partners, for example, who begin by wanting
to help each other earn sizable amounts of money, experience a misunderstanding over a
contract and then spend the next 2 years trying to one-up each other during board meetings
and to get others in the organization to side with them. The partnership begins to flounder
as each member thinks the other is more trouble than he is worth.
One other type of goal shifting occurs in conflicts. Often, a person who is frustrated
over the content of a conflict (the vote doesn’t go your way) will shift from content to pro-
cess. Concerns about fairness, equal treatment, and other process issues often surface when
one has not been successful at attaining a desired content goal. The teenager who launches
an appeal to use the family car and is turned down may resort to arguing that “you listened
to Steve, but you didn’t let me tell you why I needed the car. You treated me unfairly.” She
is switching from the unsuccessful content attempt to a discussion of process and relation-
ship. Similar process concerns arise in many conflicts after the participants realize their
content goals have been thwarted.
A change in any type of conflict goal spills over to the other types of conflict goals.
Often, as in previous examples, identity issues become intertwined with relational goals.
When you feel powerless in relationship to another person, your sense of effectiveness or
worthiness is challenged. Thus, identity goals rise in importance.
Conflict parties also sacrifice topic goals to achieve relationship goals. When the
spouse never argues, avoids expressing any disagreement, and always says, “Whatever you
want,” he or she is sacrificing content goals in order to maintain the relationship, or is
indirectly communicating lack of interest (a relationship issue). Acquiescing to others and
never telling them what you feel are types of topic goal sacrifice. In contrast, people will
sacrifice relational goals to win on the topic. If you are intently set on your content goal
(making money, going where you want for the weekend and expecting your partner to
agree, or always winning), you may be sacrificing the relationship in order to win the con-
tent. If you never consider the wishes of the other and always try to win, you are probably
destroying valuable relationships in order to accomplish your goals.
In conclusion, conflict goals change over time—they are in flux. As one goal is frus-
trated, others assume more importance. Goals change during the transactions we have with
others.
Retrospective Goals
Retrospective goals emerge after the conflict is over. People spend a large part of their
time and energy justifying decisions they have made in the past. They need to explain to
themselves and others why they made the choices they did. This process often happens
with intimates who, for example, have an intense conflict over discipline of the children.
After the first triggering comment, they may say, “Let’s decide what’s best for the children,
not just what fits our own upbringing” (prospective goal). During subsequent conflicts
over specific instances of discipline, they discuss everything from how the individual chil-
dren react, to whether Mom and Dad should support each other’s choices, even if they
don’t agree. If they decide that discipline is to be handled differently from the way it was in
past episodes, Mom might say retrospectively, “I mainly wanted to see whether you would
begin to share the discipline with me.” Dad might say, “All along I was really trying to get
you to see that you need to loosen up with the kids.” Assuming that the couple comes up
with a wise agreement they can follow in future episodes, the retrospective sense-making
helps them define who they are and make meaningful statements about the place of the
conflict in their lives. Monday morning quarterbacking is important in ongoing relation-
ships as well as in sports.
Since we do not know the implications of a conflict until we look back on it, retrospec-
tive goals give us clarity. Retrospective sense-making reverses the usual way of looking at
goals (Weick 1979). Weick explains organizational behavior as goal interpreted. People
act in an orderly fashion, coordinating their behavior with each other, but with little notion
of how this is accomplished until after the fact. Then they engage in retrospective meet-
ings, conversations, paper writing, and speeches to explain why they did what they did.
Talking about what happened after an important conflict is as important as talking about
what will happen before a conflict episode. In these retrospective accounts, your prospec-
tive goals for the next episode are formulated. Thus, we learn from experience.
Retrospective sense-making also serves the function of face-saving. Visitors to the
United States often comment on our lack of face-saving social rituals as compared to
Japan, China, and other countries. Even if you have been involved in a competitive conflict
and have won, rubbing it in or gloating over the loser will only serve to alienate and enrage
the person, perhaps driving him or her to devious actions in retaliation. If you give respect
to the person, even if you did not agree with the position, the person’s “face” will be saved,
and you will lay the groundwork for collaboration in the future. Following are some face-
saving comments:
Employer to job applicant: We looked very highly on you and your application. Our offer to
Ms. Shepherd was based on her experience in our particular kind of operation. Even though
you and I have been at odds for some time over organization of the new program, I want you to
know that your new ideas are always sound and well organized. I just have different priorities.
Mother to teenage daughter: I know you didn’t want to cause us worry. You couldn’t have
known how upset we’d be that you were four hours late. But since you did not follow our
agreement, we are grounding you for a week, as we said we would if the rule was not followed.
Goal Clarity
As noted, how conflict parties formulate, alter, and explain their goals in a conflict deter-
mines to a large degree the success of the conflict experience. This section gives sugges-
tions for better articulating and working with goals to improve your conflicts.
Clarify Your Goals

Goals that are unclear or hard to specify usually produce more conflict. A careful specifi-
cation of everyone’s goals lets you decide which ones to abandon, which ones to trade, and
which ones to maintain. The best goals include all four levels of conflict.
Sometimes, however, a discussion of goals in interpersonal conflict elicits the same
avoidance reaction mentioned in earlier chapters: “I don’t want to be manipulative. If I
figure out what I want ahead of time, I’m being pushy and presumptuous—I’ll let the chips
fall where they may.” However, all effective communication is goal directed. This means
that communication is purposive, not that it is manipulative, and that people communicate
for reasons and to reach goals. Since no one can avoid being goal directed, especially in
conflict communication, productive conflict management depends on parties’ taking open
responsibility for their goals. In other words, know what your goals are, state them clearly
to yourself, and communicate them in a flexible manner to your conflict partners. Advan-
tages of clarifying your goals follow:
1. Solutions go unrecognized if you do not know what you want. If parents are not clear
about whether they want their 18-year-old to live at home or to board in the dorm at a
local college, they will not know how to manage the conflict with the son who wants to
live in the dorm but does not have a job. If saving money is the primary goal, the par-
ents might allow the son to live in the dorm and get a job. If the parents have decided
that they do not want him to live in the dorm under any circumstances, the son’s offer
to get a job may trigger a covert conflict that is unclear and unproductive for all parties.
2. Only clear goals can be shared. Since people cannot read your mind, you must
clearly communicate your goals. An example of this kind of goal sharing occurred
in an academic department. The chairperson complained that the faculty was not
paying enough attention to university politics. He made several statements over a
period of a week or so, urging more attendance at meetings, more discussion of long-
term budget and curriculum plans, and voluntary participation in activities around
campus. Since all this happened at the beginning of a semester, when the rest of
the faculty were feeling busy, hassled by bureaucratic demands, and underappreci-
ated, the response from the faculty was negative. A genuine conflict began to brew.
Finally, the chairperson said, “Since keeping us involved in the university is my job,
I feel really down when nobody supports what I’m doing. I need some feedback on
what you think so I’m not just floundering around.” Because he changed his goal
statement from “Why don’t you people work more?” to “I need support for what I’m
doing,” the conflict was reduced and productively managed.
3. Clear goals can be altered more easily than vague goals. One agency was embroiled
in conflict over whether to fund and provide staff support for a new program to aid
recently unemployed families. The three staff members who had been charged with
setting up the new program did not know whether the agency director wanted to sup-
port that particular new program or whether he wanted to demonstrate to the funding
sources that the agency was committed to being responsive to families in general.
When the director clarified that the specific program should serve an underserved
population, the staff members altered their previous goals so that the new program
would assist with community problems of child abuse that were receiving little fund-
ing at that time. The change in staff goals was possible because the larger goals were
clarified for the staff members, along with their important role in reaching the goals.
4. Clear goals are reached more often than unclear goals. Having a map helps travelers
reach a destination. Raush et al. (1974) found that 66% of the conflicts in which the
issue was clearly stated were successfully resolved, whereas only 18% of the conflicts
in which the issue remained vague and nonspecific were resolved. For example, a
couple is considering where to move after college. If they choose the first option,
“We will stay in the same city no matter what,” they will have made a significantly
different choice than if they choose the second option, “We will both get the best jobs
we can.” Those with shared individual and relational destinations are more likely to
arrive at some desired point together. Clarifying goals has one risky outcome: It may
make seriously incompatible goals apparent; however, they will become apparent
sooner or later. Additionally, when goals are “stated explicitly and directly there is
control of escalation” (99). When one’s goals are unclear, they often promote over-
reaction from the other person, who misjudges the nature of the conflict. We are
remarkably poor at second-guessing the goals of our conflict partners.
Often people create difficulty by assuming that their goals cannot be attained—that the
other party will stand in their way. How many times have you planned and schemed for days,
only to find that others were perfectly willing to give you what you wanted? A friend was
miserable because her children would not give her any free time on the weekends. She began
to believe they did not respect her needs. Finally one night she said in tears, “If I don’t have
some time alone, I’ll go crazy.” The teenagers were glad to make plans to give her time with
no responsibilities. She simply never had asked. Even if the goal is a difficult one, allotting
time to accomplish a clear goal allows for its attainment (Neale and Bazerman 1985).
In conclusion, clarifying goals is a key step in conflict management. People assess
the conflicts in which they participate by making decisions about which goals are worth
pursuing. In common language, they get a “grip” on the situation before deciding how to
proceed.
Estimate the Other’s Goals

Once a destructive conflict begins spiraling, all our behavior is reactive. We make choices
based on what we think the other is thinking and intending. While not as elaborate as chess
moves, all conflicts share a structure similar to chess—knowing the other has “moves,”
you try to counter his or her moves. Our estimate of the other’s goals—about “what the
other wants”—propels our own choices.
When you talk to two parties to a dispute individually, you will be struck by their mis-
judgments of the other’s goals. Here are some samples from real disputes:
Party #2’s Estimate of #1’s Goals Party #1’s Goals
He wants to control me. I need some predictability.
She is trying to fire me. I want to restructure the unit.
He wants favored treatment. I want to be recognized.
He doesn’t value our input. This crisis demands action.
She is getting ready to break up with me. I need just a little more space.
One of the patterns in disputes is that as you get more convinced you know what the
other wants, you are less accurate. Figure 3.9 demonstrates this relationship. In a congre-
gation that was attempting to heal from long-standing conflicts, primarily stemming from
in-group and out-group affiliations, one task force member stated that her primary goal in
a reconciliation group was to establish a safe and trusting group climate. Soon, however,
she blamed two members for not speaking to her, saying this was why her goal was a
trusting environment. The two blamed members did not believe her goals; after her harsh
comments, they assumed she wanted to shift responsibility for the demoralized environ-
ment. Yet, she was telling the truth about what she wanted, while using a tactic, blame, that
worked against her goal. She would have been better off to reflect on her goals, making
sure her comments preserved the relationships and the identity needs of others.
Becoming convinced we know absolutely what the other wants sets the stage for misin-
terpretation. As Sillars (2002) notes in his research on married couples in conflict, “I have
been struck by how confident people seem to be when making very tenuous inferences
Figure 3.9 Confidence and Accuracy about the Other’s Goals
Confidence and accuracy about

the other’s goals
Your confidence Your accuracy

about others” (8). One dramatic example comes from church members who were sexually
abused by clergy. They had this to say about their goals:
Most survivors do not want to receive money from the church as compensation for what was
done to us. Most of us merely want to ensure that our perpetrators are removed from being able to
abuse others in their position as trusted priests. We’d like some apology for what we’ve endured.
Sometimes we want an apology or acknowledgement given to our parents. (Survivors 2004)
The legal system is not set up to support all these goals. In American culture we often
substitute money for other goals. We do not have a well-functioning system that compen-
sates people for nonmonetary goals.
In most personal conflicts in which you have known the other for a long time, your
inferences about the other are “well informed but also quite biased” (Sillars 2002, 2). We
all assume we “know” someone well, but the research is quite clear that we don’t! For one
thing, when individuals are asked to report their thoughts during a video recall, only 5 to
7% of the time are they thinking about their partner’s perspective (Sillars 2002). Further,
while one person focuses on the topic (content), the other focuses on the relationship—they
tend to see only their part of the TRIP issues and not the other person’s.
Given that there is misunderstanding about the other, this by itself feeds negative con-
flict spirals and the descent into destructive conflict. In addition, however, both parties
feel misunderstood by the other. They somehow know the other is misunderstanding their
goals, and, in fact, feeling misunderstood then moves the conflict to a more destructive
level. As you feel misunderstood, you will choose destructive conflict moves to get back
at the other.
No wonder we get into such difficulties in conflict. We misunderstand the other, react
to what we think he or she is intending, feel very confident in our assessments, and then
justify our damaging moves.
No magic process untangles these intertwining misperceptions. Communication itself is
fraught with difficulties, but one effective action is to ask the other what he or she needs.
Sometimes all you have to do is ask, listen, and act. One couple argued repetitively about
finances—whether they had enough money to go out to eat, or spend money on a trip. Sarah,
who was in charge of paying the bills from a joint account, once yelled in frustration, “What
do you want? I pay the bills on time, I balance our account online every week or so, and I
never spend money we haven’t agreed on!” When the conflict dust settled, Greg said, “I want
to keep a $500 buffer in our joint account.” Sarah replied, “I did not know you wanted that.”
Greg replied, “I thought you did not care what I wanted.” All his dampening behavior changed
when they agreed on a lesser amount as the buffer. They started having fun again.
Collaborative Goals
The best goals are clear, as explained previously, and help conflict participants collaborate
on resolving the conflict while protecting their ability to work, live, or interact with each
other in important ways. The following statements characterize collaborative goals and
may be used as a checklist for “good goals”:
1. Short-, medium-, and long-range issues are addressed. Many times people engage
too forcefully with others at the beginning of a conflict because they are afraid their
ideas will not be heard. Collaborative goals build in ways for people to be involved
in the process as it unfolds. To form collaborative goals, plan for evaluations along
the way. Give as much attention to a few weeks or months from now as to “right
now.” Looking at longer-range goals helps de-escalate the importance of initial,
prospective goals. One city council, meeting in a retreat, specified which goals,
over a time line, were important to them. They set up a plan to specify who would
do what by when and with what evaluation process. A year later, only those goals
that had been broken down into a specific time line were achieved. Goals that are
set up on a time line are less overwhelming than global goals such as “Let’s change
the way we get along as a family” or “I want more say about the financial structure
of our family.”
2. Goals are behaviorally specific. Behaviorally specific goals can be checked. “I’ll
try to do better” might become a doable goal with specification; at present, it is a
positive statement but not a collaborative goal. Terms used in intimate relations
are often more vague than statements in business relationships. A corporate vice
president could not get away with telling the president, “I will try the best I can to
remember to turn the monthly reports in on time,” but intimates make such vague
promises frequently. Specificity helps the parties know when a goal has been
accomplished. The following examples illustrate how to make vague statements
more specific:
∙ Instead of saying, “Please respect my things more,” say, “I want you to ask me
before you borrow any of my clothes. I’m usually glad to oblige, but I want you
to ask me, all right?”
∙ Instead of saying, “Let’s get this show on the road” (and then showing nonverbal
impatience during a meeting), say, “I need to leave this meeting at 5:00 sharp.”
∙ Instead of saying, “This time, young lady, you’re going to listen to what I say!” a
parent might say, “Last time we talked about your messy room I wasn’t pleased
with where we got. This time, I want you to listen to me, and I will listen to you,
and then I want us to decide on what is reasonable. OK?”
3. Statements orient toward the present and future. The language of change uses what
can be done now instead of what should have been done in the past. Hopeful state-
ments instead of blaming statements set the expectation that agreements can indeed
come about. A department head might say, “I want our program group to increase
services to clients without increasing hours worked by our counselors,” instead of,
“We have got to be more efficient than we were last year.”
4. Goals recognize interdependence. In all conflicts, tension arises between serving
self- interest and serving the interests of the other party. Research consistently
indicates, that when conflict parties operate with both concern for self and concern
for others, the agreements that emerge serve the parties best (Holloway and Brager
1985; Tutzauer and Roloff 1988). This does not mean that you give in to the other;
you can remain firm in achieving solutions that work for you while simultaneously
seeking to please the other (Tutzauer and Roloff 1988). We will discuss how to
construct collaborative solutions in Chapter 5.
5. Collaborative goals recognize an ongoing process. An overriding goal of constructive

conflict is to remain committed to the process of constructive conflict. The particular
content can be transcended by adhering to a collaborative process.
Fisher and Ury (1981) remind conflict managers that goal setting begins with the
participation of all conflict parties. “Give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they
participate in the process” (27). For collaborators, “the process is the product” (29).
The outcome of constructive conflict should be wise agreements on each of the TRIP
interests. Wise agreements are fair and durable and take the interests of all parties into
account (Fisher and Ury 1981, 4). The struggle for wise agreements is exemplified by a
couple with children that goes to court for a divorce. The agreement should be represen-
tative of both sides; should be fair to all parties, including the children; should keep the
couple out of court in the future; and should set up care for the children if they are too
young to care for themselves. The process should be efficient, involve all parties’ interests,
and improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties.
When conflict parties work together to clarify goals and specify what the conflict is
and is not about, destructive conflicts subside. Participants can come to see themselves
as working side by side on a problem, attacking the problem instead of each other. The
overarching process goal is “We, working together, can solve this problem that is confront-
ing us.” Part of the self-interest of conflict parties is preserving a workable relationship,
focusing on the problem instead of each other. Excellent conversation can lead parties to
clarity of their individual interests, their overlapping interests, and therefore, the goals that
are most likely to help all reach satisfaction.
Summary
As a conflict unfolds, topic, relational, identity, and interacting with the other parties. Transactive goals
process goals emerge (TRIP). Topic goals are the emerge during the communication exchanges.
“objective,” verifiable issues that people talk about. Transactive goals often shift; a destructive con-
Relationship goals are those pertaining to the parties’ flict is characterized by a shift from original goals
influence on each other. Who gets to decide, how they to a desire to harm the other party. Retrospective
treat one another, and other aspects of their communi- goals are identified after the conflict episodes have
cation are relationship goals. Identity, or face-saving, occurred. Unregulated, unplanned, fast-paced con-
goals have to do with the needs of people to present flicts keep many people from understanding their
themselves positively in interactions and to be treated goals until they later have time to reflect on the
with approval and respect. Process goals refer to par- transactions.
ties’ interests in how the interaction is conducted. Clarifying your goals, better estimating the oth-
Although most conflict parties center their discussions er’s goals, and working to build collaborative goals
on content and process goals, the relationship and enhances productive conflict management. Working
identity components fuel the feeling in a given conflict. against or without consulting the other party often
Goals change in the course of a conflict. sets destructive forces in motion that preclude inte-
Prospective goals are those identified before grative management of the conflict.
Key Terms
types of goals 77 process goals 89 reactive behavior 104
topic goals 78 prospective goals 97 estimating the other’s goals 104
relational goals 80 transactive goals 98 collaborative goals 105
identity, or face-saving, goals 84 retrospective goals 101
Review Questions
1. Define the four types of goals (TRIP). 8. Give an example of a transactive goal.
2. How do goals shift over time? 9. What are common identity themes?
3. How do goals overlap and influence one another? 10. How do retrospective goals change?
4. When do conflict parties shift their goals? 11. What does it mean to “specialize” in a type
5. What does it mean to sacrifice one kind of of goal?
goal for another? 12. What are the advantages of goal clarity?
6. What happens to goals in interactions with 13. Do conflict parties accurately estimate the
others? other’s goals?
7. What happens when we experience change in 14. What determines if goals are collaborative?
prospective goals?
Chapter 4
Power: The Structure of Conflict
Power is the ability to achieve a purpose . . . whether it is good or bad depends on the purpose.
—Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Just as energy is a fundamental concept in physics, power is a fundamental concept in con-

flict theory. In interpersonal conflicts, perceptions of power are at the heart of any analysis
(Lasswell 2009; Magee 2009). While people seldom talk directly about power, the currents
operate as unseen but felt forces in any conflict (Dunbar 2015). Reflect on times when you
have heard someone say, “I’d really rather you did not do that,” or when your family was
gathering ideas about where to go on vacation. Maybe you can remember how you decided
where to sit, when to speak, or whether to speak at all in a tense meeting at work. Joyce
(author) tells the story of when, in her childhood, her father had a chance to take a job in
Hawaii, leaving their home in Dallas. She and her sister, the older siblings of three, lobbied
their 3-year-old brother to “vote” for Hawaii. The two sisters learned about the influence of
power when their parents gently informed them that they were not making this decision by
voting, and while the parents wanted to know how the children felt, they would make the
decision. Power determines many of our communication choices.
Analyzing power helps the conflict student learn more about dealing with situations
of extreme power imbalances, such as violence and verbal abuse, bullying, and economic
disempowerment. You will also become better equipped to confront less dramatic but still
influential power differences that may accrue from gender roles, work systems, intimate
and family systems, and differences of advantage.
This chapter examines common assumptions people hold about power, introduces
theories of power, illustrates orientations to power, analyzes bases of power, and pro-
poses a relational theory of power. You will learn to assess power, and most important,
how to rebalance power so constructive conflict can take place. Sometimes all we can do
in conflicts is keep the destruction from spiraling out of control, or negotiate an uneasy
“balance of terror.” Often, thankfully, alternatives to the top-down exercise of power, or
avoidance when people are out of power, emerge when people commit to finding them.
Constructive use of power solves problems, enhances relationships, and balances power,
at least during particular interactions. When that happens, the hard work that goes into
learning about conflict management is worth it!
Power Defined
Scholars define power various ways. A focus on outcome, on power in the relationship,
and hybrid approaches which meld both have served the field well (Totman 2014). In
previous editions of this text, power was defined as the ability to influence a relational
partner in any context because you control, or at least the partner perceives that you
control, resources that the partner needs, values, desires, or fears. Interpersonal power
also includes the ability to resist the influence attempts of a partner. (Thanks to Maureen
Monsour for this classroom-tested definition.) Dunbar (2015), in a thorough review of
literature on interpersonal power, suggests a new, simple definition of power, to which we
add the idea of resistance:
Power is the ability to produce intended effects, and in particular, the ability to influence the
behavior of another person, and to resist the influence attempts of others.
Like any other ability, people with power do not always choose to exercise their abil-
ity, and even if they do, how effective they are depends on other people and their responses.
Six characteristics of power support the above definition:
∙ People with power are more likely to get their way than people with less power, even
if the power is exercised with subtlety.
∙ Power is an attribute of the system rather than the property of the individual.
∙ Power changes in a dynamic way, depending on interaction.
∙ Power depends both on one’s perception of others’ power, and the behaviors of each
person.
∙ Power is always unbalanced, although people in relationship may balance power
across different spheres and over time.
∙ Power depends on social relationships, interactions, and outcomes of specific
conflicts. (Adapted from Dunbar 2015)
Personal Orientations to Power

In Chapter 2 you learned that your particular views of self, other, and relationship are
the key ingredients in a conflict (along with the other’s perceptions of these). When a
dispute occurs between people, their perspectives on their own and others’ power will
predispose them to engage in certain communicative moves. People feel passionately about
power—who has it, who ought to possess more or less, how people misuse power, and how
justified they feel in trying to gain more power for themselves.
We each need enough power to live the life we want. We want to influence events
that matter to us. We want to have our voices heard, and make a difference. We want to
protect ourselves against perceived harm. We want to hold ourselves in high esteem and
we need to highly regard those we care about. We do not want to be victimized, misused,
or demeaned. No one can escape feeling the effects of power—whether we have too much
or too little.
When people struggle with each other, they almost never agree on anything having to
do with power. For example, you might be a student intern in a real estate firm and you feel
that brokers have all the power. The brokers, on the other hand, see you having sources of
power such as your close connection to others in the office, your ability to help the brokers
do their jobs, and your knowledge of the real estate business you gained working last sum-
mer. Plus, you are not yet trying to make a living from real estate. If you see yourself as low
power you are likely to keep silent even when you disagree—giving the impression that
you agree when you don’t. If, on the other hand, you feel that both you and the brokers have
sources of power, you will be more likely to engage in discussion to work through issues.
If you think of yourself as “just a lowly intern,” you may miss many opportunities to be a
team member because you have assessed your power in this system incorrectly.
You probably can identify an emotional response when you hear the word power.
Kipnis (1976) notes, “Like love, we know that power exists, but we cannot agree on a
description of it” (8). The following exercise will help you think about how you respond to
the idea of power.
Application 4.1 Meaning of “Power”
Respond quickly to the word power, as you did with the word conflict in Chapter 2. What comes to
mind? The following are common associations: Mark the ones that fit for you, and add connotations
of your own:
power play power source power corrupts
high powered power behind the throne devious
bullheaded run over authority
power politics powerhouse overpower
low powered sneaky strong-arm
bulldozed powerful influence
Discuss what you were taught about the use of power. List three explicit or implicit “learnings”
about power from your personal history, then discuss these with your small group. Some examples
from students include:
“When people gang up on you, there’s nothing to do but get away. You can’t go up against a
group.”
“The most important kind of power is your own character.”
“Stay connected to people in power; they can help you.”
“Using power with those you care about is despicable.”
“We don’t talk about power. Power isn’t nice.”
“Your father/mother has the say around here. Don’t cross him/her.”
“It’s safest to get in a coalition with someone older and stronger.”
“I learned to gain power by manipulation, deception, sneaking, or lying.”
“As a pretty young girl I learned to gain power by flirting and playing with boys and men.”
As reflected by this list, people have different views of power, some positive and some
negative. Some people see power as good and exciting. Others see power as instinctive—
something we all possess innately (Pierro, Cicero, and Raven 2008). Still others see power
as the result of political skill; as a charismatic thing that people have within themselves.
We respond to conflict differently based, in part, on our different orientations to what
power is—positive, negative, or benign.
Power Denial
Some people dislike any discussion of power. They may deny that power and influence
are appropriate topics for discussion. One student wrote that in her relationship with
her boyfriend, “No one has to have power—we just listen to each other, try to respond
with love, and always put the relationship and each other first.” She seemed to think that
acknowledging any use of power would destroy her idealized relationship with her boy-
friend. Some view power as negative and find “explicit references to power . . . in bad
taste” (Kipnis 1976, 2). Conducting research on married couples, Cahill (1982) encoun-
tered this view when he interviewed them about their relationships. When he asked them
about decision making, persuasive techniques, and disagreements, the discussion flowed
smoothly. But when he asked about their relative amounts of power, he encountered long
silences, halting answers, obvious embarrassment, and reluctance to speak of the topic.
Similarly, McClelland (1969) noted that when people were told they had high drives to
achieve or affiliate, they derived great satisfaction from the feedback, but people who
were told they had a high drive for power experienced guilt.
In its extreme form, reluctance to talk about power emerges as power denial. Haley
(1959) listed four common attempts people use to deny that they exercise power, as listed
in the accompanying box.
Denying Power Use

1. Deny that you communicated something.
2. Deny that something was communicated.
3. Deny that you communicated something to the other person.
4. Deny that the situation even existed, for example, “That did not happen. You remember it
completely wrong.”
The speaker can deny he or she is communicating in a number of ways, such as say-
ing, “I’m not myself when I drink,” or “It’s just the pressure I’m under that’s making me
act like such a grouch.” You may hear the claim “I can’t help it. I told you I was jealous.
I’m not responsible for what I said.” To say that you are not responsible for your commu-
nication lets you exercise control (if others accept your claim) while denying that you are
doing so. Denying that a message was communicated is another way to ignore the exis-
tence of power. The simplest way to deny communication is to say, “I did not say that.”
Since this kind of denial usually gets you in trouble after a while, another form develops,
such as, “I forgot I said that. Did I really say that? I didn’t mean to.” For example, a super-
visor might consistently forget to include the new members of a staff in the e-mail lists.
As a result, the newer, less powerful members are often late for meetings or miss them
totally, having to reschedule other meetings at the last minute. When confronted by those
left out, the supervisor says, “Oh, my administrative aide is responsible for scheduling
meetings.”
Denying that a message was communicated to a particular person is another way of
expressing discomfort with the exercise of power. For example, a salesperson rings the
doorbell of an apartment complex, and the following dialogue ensues:
Salesperson: Hello, I’d like to take this opportunity . . .

Apartment dweller: People are bothering me too much! Oh, I’m not talking about you. It’s
just that everyone bugs me day in and day out. I get no peace of mind.
I wish the world would calm down and leave me alone.
Salesperson: Maybe I can see you another time. I’m sorry I bothered you . . .
The person who was bothered is exercising considerable control in the communicative
transaction and also denying that the remarks are not meant for that particular salesperson.
Another common way of denying that your comments were addressed to the other person
is to claim that you were “just thinking out loud” and did not mean to imply anything
toward the other person. For instance, a boss might say, muttering under his or her breath,
“If I could count on people . . .” Then when a subordinate asks what is wrong, the boss
might say, “What? Oh, nothing—just a hard day.”
The last way to deny communicative power attempts is to deny that what has been said
applies to this situation. Saying, “I’m used to being treated unfairly by others; I probably always
will be,” denies the clear implication that you feel the other is treating you in a demeaning man-
ner. One employee left work without notifying her supervisor. She had been working extra hours
in order to finish a report due to their funding agency. As she left, she was heard to say, “Let’s
just see how everyone can get along without my help since they seem to ignore my suggestions.”
When her supervisor confronted the employee on the overheard statement, she said, “Oh, I was
just under stress from working all weekend. I didn’t mean anything about the rest of the team.
They’re doing the best they can.” The employee who left denied that she used her power to with-
hold her expertise under deadline pressure. She also denied the importance of what she said.
All of the preceding examples are ways that people can deny exercising power in a
relationship when, in fact, they really are exercising power. Whenever you communicate
with another, what you say and do exercises some communicative control—you either go
along with someone else’s definition of the conflict, struggle over the definition, or supply
it yourself. Even if you would rather be seen as a person who does not exert power, you
exercise influence on how the conflict interaction is going to be defined.
Many people who hold high-power positions are particularly prone to denying that
they have or use power. Directors, presidents, CFOs, doctors, teachers, managers, and
some parents have more power than they may recognize. If you are in a high-power posi-
tion, you may not see yourself as powerful. Others do. Here are some of the communica-
tion consequences of being in a high-power position:
∙ You don’t know what people don’t want you to know.
∙ You hear about one-tenth of the “grapevine” information.
∙ People are more cautious/afraid/nervous/withholding than you think they are.
∙ The “Open Door Policy” that you talk about is not effective.
∙ People want to please you.
∙ Your supervisees cover up what they don’t know.
∙ Your team may express agreement and approval of your ideas, then talk among them-
selves about problems with your ideas.
People in high-power positions must take specific communication steps to address the
natural outcomes of unequal power. These balancing moves will be presented later in the
chapter. For now, remember, if you are in a position of designated leadership or organiza-
tional power, the communication around you changes. Lower-power people cannot produc-
tively balance the power without the help of the higher-power people.
The fact that power is central to the study of conflict does not mean that people are
manipulative and try to gain power illegitimately. Rather, the productive exercise of per-
sonal power is crucial to your self-concept. Without some exercise of power in your inter-
personal relationships, you would soon feel worthless as a person.
Remember that just as one cannot not communicate (Watzlawick et al. 1967), you do
not have the option of not using power. We only have options about whether to use power
destructively or productively for ourselves and our relationships.
A Relational Theory of Power

Are people, in themselves, powerful? If you say, “Lynn is a powerful person,” you
may, if she is your friend, be referring to such attributes as verbal facility, intelligence,
compassion, warmth, and understanding. Or you may refer to a politician as power-
ful, alluding to her ability to make deals, call in favors, remember names and faces,
and understand complex economic issues. In interpersonal relationships, however, a
relational theory of power explains status more effectively. Excluding situations of
unequal physical power and use of violence, power is a property of the social relation-
ship rather than a quality of the individual. Lynn, for instance, has power with her
friends because she has qualities they value. When she suggests something to do, like
going on an annual women’s backpacking trip, her friends try to clear their calendars
because they like her, have fun with her, and feel understood by her. Lynn has a way of
making a group feel cohesive and at ease. But if an acquaintance hated backpacking, did
not like some of the other people going on the trip, and was irritated at Lynn because
of a misunderstanding that had not yet been cleared up, Lynn’s power with the irritated
acquaintance would lessen considerably.
Individuals do not own power. The particular relationship creates the power dis-
tribution. Therefore, power is a product of the communication relationship (Guinote
and Vescio 2010; Raven 2008). Certain qualities matter in this relationship, such as
economic resources, love and affection, or networking skills. Rather than residing in
people, “power is always interpersonal” (May 1972, 23). In the strictest sense, except
when violence and physical coercion are used, power is given from one party to another
in a conflict. Power can be taken away when the situation changes. Power dynamics are
fluid, changing, and dependent on the specific relationship and context (Dunbar 2015;
Pratto, Lee, Tan, and Pitpitanand 2010). Each person in a conflict has some degree of
power, though one party may have more compared to the other, and the power can shift
during a conflict.
Power is based on one’s dependence on resources or currencies that another person
controls, or seems to “possess.” Emerson (1962) specified that a person’s power is directly
tied to the nature of the relationship. In terms of two people, A and B, person A has power
over person B to the extent that B is dependent on A for goal attainment. Likewise, per-
son B has power over person A to the extent that A is dependent on B. The following box
expresses this simple formula.
PAB = DBA
(the power of A over B is equal to the dependence that B has on A), and
PBA = DAB
(the power of B over A is equal to the dependence that A has on B).
Your dependence on another person is a function of (1) the importance of the goals
the other can influence and (2) the availability of other avenues for you to accomplish what
you want. As Emerson (1962) states, “The dependence of Actor B upon Actor A is directly
proportional to B’s motivational investment in goals mediated by A, and inversely propor-
tional to the availability of those goals to B outside of the A-B relation” (31). In a mutually
beneficial relationship, power is not fixed, but shifts as each becomes dependent in a posi-
tive way on the resources the other person may offer. This process builds a relationship and
takes time to accomplish (Donohue and Kolt 1992).
Both/and power, or power that is shared, remains the model of choice for many
women in Western culture. Shared dependency creates a more vital relationship than
unequal dependency. Researchers at the Wellesley Centers for Women have spent four
decades explicating “relational theory” in an attempt to balance out the more traditional
assumptions (which are thankfully changing) of a patriarchal system. In their collective
writings, they describe how boys were traditionally socialized to depend on autonomy,
or separation from the constraints of other people’s views, and from group identity. Boys
were more comfortable with the hierarchy of teams, captains, coaches, and winning and
losing than were girls. Girls learned to play with less emphasis on hierarchy. Many (not
all) girls’ games are cooperative in nature, as they play out roles, after discussing together
what to do. As Heim and Galant noted (1993), there’s no boss in dolls. For boys, conflict
meant competition, which often enhanced their relationships. For girls, the win/win strat-
egy (enhancing mutual dependence) is still often preferred.
Maturity and competence depend on growth-in-connection and mutuality. The ability
to develop relationally depends on mutual empathy, mutual empowerment, and respon-
sibility to both self and others. It is shared positive power. Relational theory underlies
effective conflict resolution, of the collaborative kind, which will be presented extensively
later. When people work in teams in organizations, the ability to use mutual, or both/
and power, is necessary. Yet this kind of mutuality is often not valued as much as the
more masculine either/or power. Fletcher (1999) describes how both/and work disap-
pears in organizations since it is not categorized as “real work.” For instance, prevent-
ing problems is not seen as important as solving problems on some work environments.
Mothers who coordinate highly complex family activities sometimes are viewed as “not
working” because their efforts involve interaction among all the family members instead
of major attention being given to their own schedules and needs, with the attendant eco-
nomic rewards. Fletcher’s (1999) research with engineering firms showed that in a culture
that prizes individual achievement and winning, voluntarily helping others was seen as
naïve and powerless (95).
The following case will illustrate the difference between either/or and both/and
power
Application 4.2 The Case of Lynn and Daniel
Lynn and Daniel are a married couple in their 30s. Daniel is employed as a smoke jumper supervi-
sor. This work requires him to be ready literally at a moment’s notice to get in a plane and direct
safety activities for firefighters from various regions when a fire breaks out. Lynn and Daniel have
two small children, ages 2 and 4. They have decided that for now, the family needs are best served
by Lynn’s being the primary parent, and taking care of the children, especially since Daniel is some-
times gone for weeks during fire season.
Here’s where the problem comes in. In Daniel’s family the person making the money had the
power. He believes that since Lynn is not making much money (she works part time as a piano
teacher), she should not make major purchases without his permission. He expects Lynn to pay
the necessary bills, but to ask him for money, when she needs it, for household expenses. Lynn
is angry and sometimes feels defeated since, in her view, Daniel does not know the needs of the
household. She thinks she should be able to make expenditures as she sees fit. When she wants to
plan a trip, or buy something out of the ordinary, Daniel says, “Make the money, then. I’m working
as hard as I can.” Lynn believes that Daniel completely devalues her work at home.
How Might Lynn and Daniel Talk About Their Conflict?
What Lynn Feels and Thinks Lynn feels furious some of the time; she often feels misun-
derstood and devalued. She sees herself as extremely careful with household expenses. She
shops when needed items are on sale, watches for good grocery values, and buys the kids’
clothes at consignment shops. She swaps clothes and toys with other mothers of young
children. Lynn often feels competent and powerful in her role. She loves her children, is
glad to be home with them, and experiences her mothering as a chosen job. Truth be told,
she is often glad when Daniel is gone on a fire, because she can make decisions without
“going through Daniel.” She loves Daniel, but is often angry with him, and feels sad be-
cause her affection diminishes when they fight.
In Lynn’s family, money was always very tight, and she is proud of her skills at stretch-
ing a small budget. Her mother did the same kind of good job that Lynn does, and her father
appreciated her efforts. Her father worked as the manager of a small-town store, so he was
present in the home and often complimented Lynn’s mom on her homemaking skills.
Lynn has a college degree in communication with a minor in child development. She
is upset that she and Daniel have not been able to solve their chronic, ongoing conflict
about expenses. Lynn now sees Daniel as “just wanting to have all the power.” In her view
he lords it over her since she doesn’t make money. Lynn sees herself as making money by
saving the family money.
Then a trigger event arises. Daniel is gone for 6 weeks on a major fire. During that
time, Lynn’s mother develops breast cancer. Daniel is out of cell phone contact much of
the time. Lynn decides to fly herself and the kids to the Midwest to be with her mother for
the period when Mom is deciding what kind of treatment to pursue. Lynn puts the tickets
on their credit card.
“Nothing is more important than being with my family at this time,” Lynn thinks.
“Daniel will be upset, but he has to understand my values. I’ll let him know how important
this is to me and mom. She hasn’t seen the kids in over a year and it’s the right thing to do.”
What Daniel Thinks and Feels Daniel agrees that it is important for Lynn to be home
with the young kids. He agrees that she should go to graduate school, if she wants to, when
the kids are in school. He loves Lynn and feels fortunate to have found her. He thinks she
is an excellent mother. Daniel is very concerned about his job. His major concern is his
safety, and the safety of his crew. He has to make very tough judgment calls that affect their
safety. He has a degree in forestry and resource management. While he has had a chance to
move out of active firefighting, since he trains and supervises during non–fire seasons, he
likes the challenge of making good judgment calls. He is popular with his crew. They trust
him and like working on his crew, because he is skilled and fair. He is a quick thinker, a
no-nonsense leader, who nevertheless feels his responsibilities deeply.
At home, Daniel loves to be a father to his kids. He misses them when he is gone, as he
misses Lynn. Daniel worries about money since he is, for now, the sole earner. His ability
to earn extra money depends on his hardship pay, which means being gone for more than a
few days. His father and mother argued about money. His father made most of the money,
while his mother worked part time while raising five children. His father was a school
administrator who was an alcoholic, although most of the people in their community did
not know it. He was occasionally abusive to the kids, and demeaning to their mother.
Daniel made a decision when he first left home never to be abusive, as his father was. He has
made his own peace with his father, who admires Daniel’s work. He is close to his mother.
Daniel thinks he and Lynn are doing a good job of raising their children and getting
along as young parents. However, Daniel becomes angry when Lynn spends more than a
budgeted amount of money without checking with him. He does not see their arrangement
as one that requires “Lynn has to ask me.” Rather, he feels it is a matter of respect. He is
not interested in what he considers “frills,” and disagrees with Lynn’s choices about some
of the ways to spend money, especially on trips, vacations, and family visits. He thinks
those expenditures can wait until they are both working. He has not seen his parents and
younger siblings in 3 years; they communicate infrequently, although he calls his mother
often when he comes back from a fire since she worries about him.
When Daniel was able to call Lynn he found out that she was leaving the next day to
see her mother. He was furious and told Lynn he wanted her to cancel her plans.
The Communication Possibilities Lynn and Daniel will not be able to see each other for at
least 2 weeks. They have never been more at odds with each other in their 8-year marriage.
Here are some ineffective communication strategies that Lynn and Daniel can use to
resolve their conflict.
Lynn’s Ineffective Communication Strategies

∙ “We may not have the money in the bank, but that’s what emergency credit cards are
for. We can deal with the expenses later.”
∙ “You cannot tell me when to see my own mother when she is scared and sick.”
∙ “Sure. You couldn’t possibly understand a normal relationship with a parent, given
how sick your family is.”
∙ “If you try to stop me, I’ll go anyway and maybe I won’t come home.”
∙ “My Dad sent the money.” (This is not true. She thinks she’ll deal with the problem
later.)
∙ “You are breaking my heart. I’ll never forgive you.”
∙ “I’ve already told the kids we are going to see Grandma.”
∙ “You can’t possibly understand how I feel.”
Daniel’s Ineffective Communication Strategies

∙ “You do not have the right to make this decision without me.”
∙ “You care nothing for how hard I am working. It will take a year to pay off this trip.”
∙ “Can’t you talk to her on the phone every day?”
∙ “Leave the kids with your friend. She owes you some babysitting time.”
∙ “You are being unreasonable. Wait until you know what is going to happen, then
maybe we can work out a trip.”
∙ “Don’t you care what I think? Is this all up to you?”
∙ “You have no sense of what the limits are to what I make. If you want to go, get a
part-time job.”
In small groups, (1) identify what’s wrong with these approaches; (2) specify ways that
might work to open up communication. Role-play some of the best ideas you have learned so
far, without “caving in.” Lynn and Daniel both have reasons for their opinions and feelings.
Identify your biases, and use the best communication skills you can—without abandoning
the issues and concerns under this power struggle. The class should give feedback on how
realistically the “Lynn team” and “Daniel team” play their roles. During the role-play, class
members can come up and give new suggestions about what might work. Remember that
Lynn and Daniel are interdependent; they love each other, and a lot is at stake.
Bases of Power
If you have traveled in a foreign country you may have struggled with different currencies.
Euros used in Greece are worthless in India, where rupees are used. Likewise, a pocketful
of rupees is worthless in France, unless you exchange them. Just as money depends on the
context where it is to be spent (the country), your power currencies depend on how much
your particular resources are valued by the other persons in a relationship context. You
may have a vast amount of expertise in the rules of basketball, but if your fraternity needs
an intramural football coach, your currencies are not as valuable. Power depends on the
ability to employ currencies that other people need. In the same manner, if other people
possess currencies you value, such as the ability to edit your term paper or give you a ride,
they potentially maintain some degree of power over you in your relationships with them.
Conflict is often confusing because people try to spend a currency that is not valued in a
particular relationship. You may have heard a discarded romantic partner proclaim, “But
I am a good person!” Goodness must not be the currency the person who broke off the
relationship most wants.
Power currencies are classified in many different ways by researchers (Totman 2014).
One classic categorization is Raven and French’s bases of power as reward, coercive, legiti-
mate, referent, and expert (Raven 2008; Raven and French 1956). Kipnis (1976) maintained
that influential tactics are best classified as threats and promises, persuasion, reinforcement
control, and information control. May (1972) notes five types of power: exploitative, manip-
ulative, competitive, nutrient, and integrative. Folger, Poole, and Stutman (1993) supply
this list: special skills and abilities, expertise about the task, personal attractiveness and
likability, control over rewards and/or punishments, formal position in a group, loyal allies,
persuasive skills, and control over critical group possessions.
Other ways of categorizing bases of power are well described by Totman (2014) in his
extensive analysis of the way power and leadership work together, especially in religious
congregations. Normative power depends on membership in certain groups that people
value. Formal declarations of allegiance, or normative power, include the U.S. pledge of
allegiance (20), dress codes in corporations, policies that certain religious groups adhere
to, or want their members to adopt, and student codes of conduct regarding plagiarism and
documentation of work.
Settings can influence power in a striking way. This form of power literally sets the
stage upon which power is determined within the group (Totman 2014). Think of a judge
being dressed in formal black robes, sitting on a higher plane than people in the courtroom.
The norms dictate that when the bailiff intones, “all rise,” that everyone does (21).
Some forms of power depend on trust. A person regarded by others as an authority
needs to have a high level of knowledge in the area of leadership and specific knowl-
edge required by the position of authority (Totman 2014), as well as be trustworthy of
reasonable and fair action. When mistrust is high, people may not believe each other,
therefore reducing their willingness to depend on the goodwill or the word of the other.
Trust is one of the first qualities to suffer when lying is suspected, or when people
refuse to give others, such as intimate partners, respect and kind treatment. For couples
dealing with betrayal, lack of interest, rude or cruel treatment, or lying, trust is the first
quality to suffer and the last to return. When trust remains very low, the relationship
usually ends.
Designated power, or position power, can be easily seen. The president of the United
States, police officers, managers at work, and professors all have certain designations of
power in a particular role. Persons of color undoubtedly view the power of a police officer,
when he pulls over their car, differently than white women may. Your classroom instructor
can assign your grade, and your supervisor at work can give you a raise for superior work
(Maurer and Seibel 2010). Applying the relational theory of power, however, if you are not
a citizen of the United States the president may carry less of a powerful image, or if you are
a member of an opposing political party you may not regard the current president highly.
If an employee knows that she will request a transfer to another school, she may not care
much what her current supervisor thinks of her teaching if she has already received a good
recommendation from her principal.
Regardless of the various labels, everyone has potential currencies that may be used
to balance or gain power in a relationship. Even when you devalue your own currency, a
careful analysis can show you areas of wealth. The following box presents a list of general
interpersonal power currencies.
The acronym RICE will help you recall interpersonal power currencies, the aspects of
power most important in interpersonal conflict:
R
Resource control: Often comes with one’s formal position in an organization or group. An example
is the controlling of rewards or punishments such as salary, number of hours worked, or firing.
Parents control resources such as money, freedom, cars, and privacy for teenagers.
I
Interpersonal linkages: Your position in the larger system, such as being central to the communi-
cation exchange. If you are a liaison person between two factions, serve as a bridge between two
groups that would otherwise not have information about each other, or have a network of friends
who like each other, you have linkage currencies.
C
Communication skills: Conversational skills, persuasive ability, listening skills, group leadership
skills, the ability to communicate caring and warmth, and the ability to form close bonds with others
all contribute to interpersonal power. All people need to be related to others, to matter to others, and
to be understood by others. Those who communicate well gain value and thus interpersonal power.
E
Expertise: Special knowledge, skills, and talents that are useful for the task at hand. Being an
expert in a content area such as budget analysis, computer skills, fixing houses, or local knowl-
edge of real estate choices give you power when others need your expertise.
Resource Control
Resource control often results from attaining a formal or informal position that brings valued
resources to you. The head of a company, regardless of personal qualities, will always have
resources that go along with the job. Leadership and position, by their very nature, create
dependence. Power goes with leadership and designated positions, such as CEO, supervisor,
or parents of young and maturing people. Whatever your position—secretary, boss, chairper-
son, teacher, manager, or volunteer—you will be in a position to control resources that others
desire. Some resources are economic in nature, such as money, gifts, and material possessions.
Many people try to be close and supportive to those around them by buying gifts. They trade
on economic currencies in order to obtain intimacy currencies from others. Their gifts are not
always valued enough to bring them what they want, however. As Blau wrote decades ago, “A
person who gives others valuable gifts or renders them important services makes a claim for
superior status by obligating them to himself” (1964, 108). People with little money usually
have limited access to these forms of power. College graduates who cannot find jobs must
remain financially dependent on others, thus limiting independence on both sides. Elderly
people whose savings shrink due to inflation and growing health care needs lose power; moth-
ers with children and no means of support lose most of their choices about independence, thus
losing most of their potential power. Economic currencies are not the only important type of
power currency, but they operate in personal conflicts as well as in larger social conflicts.
In addition to economic resources, many other qualities may tip the balance of power,
such as attractiveness, access to recreational facilities, a favorable assessment of skills
brought to a situation, and willingness to share materials at work.
Interpersonal Linkages
Another cluster of power currencies comes from one’s interpersonal linkages, a set of
currencies dependent on interpersonal contacts and a network of friends and supporters.
People often obtain power based on whom they know and with whom they associate. For
instance, if you have a good friend who has a rustic cabin at the ocean you can share with
others, then you have attained some power (if your family or friends want to go to the
ocean) because of your ability to obtain things through other people.
Interpersonal linkages help one attain power through coalition formation. Whenever
you band together with another (such as a good friend) to gain some sense of strength, this
coalition can be a form of power. The small boy who says, “You better not hit me, because
if you do, my big sister will beat you up” understands the potential value of coalitions. The
friend who says, “I’ve got your back” loans a kind of interpersonal power to someone who
feels scared or threatened.
Interpersonal linkages are a source of power when people check out their network for
what classes to take, where jobs might be available, where rentals might be found, and other
kinds of information. “Who you know” is often a source of power. Letters of recommenda-
tion, whether for work or further education, draw on interpersonal linkages for their power.
People who use social media skillfully often draw on linkages for interpersonal power
Communication Skills
One’s communication skills also serve as potential power currencies. If you can lead a group
in a decision-making process, speak persuasively, write a news release for your organiza-
tion, or serve as an informal mediator between angry people, you will gain power because
of your communication skills. Almost all companies hiring college graduates these days
stress good oral and written communication skills. Likewise, if you can facilitate the social
process of a group, serve as the fun-loving joker in the family, or get conversations started
at work, others typically will value you. Remember, only when these currencies are valued
by others will they increase your power.
Communication skills also include the ability to form bonds with others through love,
sex, caring, nurturing, understanding, empathic listening, warmth, attention, and other char-
acteristics of intimate relationships. If a father provides genuine warmth and understanding
to his teenage daughter who is going through a tough time at school, his support is a currency
for him in their father–daughter relationship. Some people draw others to them because they
listen attentively, remember what is important to others, and ask questions that show the
importance of the others. One cannot become an effective conflict manager without excellent
interpersonal communication skills. While the entire book you are reading refers to commu-
nication skills, here are some cornerstone skills to learn as well as possible:
Enlightened Conversation
Conflict resolution depends wholly on a skill we all already possess. You will want to
become an expert in conversation, because it is one of the most important ways of estab-
lishing equality (Young-Bruehl and Bethelard 2000, 209).
Face-to-face conversation remains the starting point to constructive conflict. You may be
fairly clear about what you want, what the other person’s issues might be, and what the stakes
are. The best first step is to talk directly with the people involved. Conflicts are worsened
by e-mails that are designed to sharpen or avoid conflict, policy changes, announcements at
meetings, memos, any other forms of avoidance—it seems hard for people to talk with each
other when feelings are strong.
Joyce (one of the authors) consulted for many years with a government agency. Here
is a typical phone call. Director calls Joyce. She describes a difficult person and asks for
counsel on how to proceed. Joyce listens, then says:
Joyce: I think you should talk to him directly. You could go down the hall and ask for a brief
conversation/pick up the phone and call him/ask for time at the conference next week.
Director: I knew you’d tell me to do that. I guess I still find it hard. Do I have to?
When Bill (one of the authors) coached executives, after listening to details about a
co-worker who was interfering with them, he would ask, “Have you told him that and had a
conversation about it?” The answer was always “no.” Len, a vice president, reported, “My
boss is totally unpredictable—one day he loves my work and the next day he is scornful
and nasty.” Bill suggested that Len work out a way to give feedback, such as “I want to
do a great job, but it is hard for me to read what is important to you. On Tuesday you said
everything was great, then on Wednesday you showed real displeasure. Give me some
guidance on what you want.” Len, however, says, “I can’t do that, he is my boss—I’ll just
wait it out this year and then move on.” Direct conversation seems to be very difficult for
many people. Here is a starting list of excellent communication skills:
∙ Speak to the other with a positive tone. For instance, your opening words should
communicate respect, should be clear, should show compassion for the perspective of
the other, and should be direct. Cheryl felt furious and defensive when her older
sister, Diane, called her and her boyfriend a couch potato. She decided to talk with
her a second time, after the first interaction went badly. (“Keep your opinions to
yourself—what I do is none of your business).”
A second try might begin like this: “Diane, I get immediately defensive when you
make a derogatory judgment about us. When you made that comment, I had already
worked my shift. I was relaxing.
You were my best coach when I was growing up and needed help from my older sis-
ter with homework. You may be worried that I’m not putting in enough study time.
That’s my concern—it’s up to me to manage my time. Please don’t make a judg-
ment.” A positive tone lowers defensiveness.
∙ Listen. Pay close attention, ask open-ended questions, and let the other person know
you’ve heard what he or she has said. Avoid saying, “I understand you, but it’s just
that. . . .” This ensures that the other will not feel understood. Instead, say, “I think
what you are saying is that you are uneasy about my plan.” When you use “but” the
person hears nothing you’ve said before that one word.
∙ Reflect feelings. In addition to listening and reflecting content, reflect the feelings of
the other person. This is harder than it seems. Often, we miss the feeling tone of the
other. Reflecting feelings might sound like this: “You are too pressured to take on a
new project now, although you like the sound of it.”
∙ Clarify what you have heard. You might say, “Let me be sure I understand what you
are saying. . .” or “Are you telling me that you do not want to work with Paul?”
∙ Question when needed. Ask questions for which you do not know the answer. Avoid
asking questions as a way to slip into your opinion. A good question would sound
like this: “Tell me more about your concern for your son. What are you worried
about?”
∙ Summarize. You can help track and orient the conversation by summarizing what you
have both/all talked about so far. Avoid adding your own opinion—that comes later.
Summarizing might sound like this: “We’ve identified the problems about scheduling
the family reunion. People have a lot of different ideas about where to meet. Some
feelings have been hurt already, and many of the family members have strong opin-
ions. We’ve decided to ask Carolyn to contact everyone giving the best options the
three of us have come up with. Is this right?”
Expertise
Expertise currencies are special skills or knowledge someone else values. The worker who
is the only one who can operate the boiler at a large lumber mill has power because his
expertise is badly needed. The medical doctor who specializes in a particular area has
expertise power because her information and skills are needed by others. Almost all profes-
sions develop specialized expertise valued by others, which serves as a basis of power for
people in the profession. Family members develop expertise in certain areas that others
within the family come to depend on, such as cooking, repairing the car, keeping track of
birthdays and anniversaries, or babysitting.
We limit our own power when we develop some currencies at the expense of others.
For example, women have traditionally been most comfortable providing more warmth
and affection than men do. If this particular communication skill is developed at the
expense of the ability to clarify a group discussion, a woman unnecessarily limits her
power potential. The person who trades on currencies of interpersonal linkages, such as
access to the manager, may neglect the development of expertise. The person who gains
power by controlling resources, such as money or sex, may neglect the development of
communication skills, resulting in a relationship based on coercive instead of shared
power; withdrawing warmth in intimate relationships too often substitutes for good com-
munication skills. A worker who focuses on the development of expertise in computer
programming and systems analysis may ignore potential power through interpersonal
linkages, thus furthering a tendency toward isolation in the organization. The most effec-
tive conflict participant develops several forms of power currencies and knows when
to activate the different forms of power. A repertoire of currencies is a better base for
sharing power than exclusive reliance on one form of power, which can lead to misuse
of that power.
Clarifying the currencies available to you and the other parties in a conflict helps in
the conflict analysis. People are often unaware of their own sources of productive power,
just as they do not understand their own dependence on others. Desperation and low-power
tactics often arise from the feeling that one has no choice, that no power is available.
Analyze your power currencies when you find yourself saying, “I have no choice.” Usually,
you are overlooking potential sources of power.
Application 4.3 My Sources of Power
Think of a particular relationship where you are in conflict, strain, or the potential for struggle.
Then, (1) list your own sources of power, using the RICE acronym. After that, (2) go to a friend or
partner and share the RICE examples from the book and ask him or her to list sources of power you
have (without showing this person your list). Finally, (3) compare the two lists and see what sources
of power you missed.
Often, it’s difficult to hold on to the idea of relational power. Under stress, we go back
to “she has power because she has a supportive family,” or “I have power because I don’t
care” (when the person really does care). Of course, it is true that certain areas of expertise
can bring power. Some people may be valued by others because of excellent cooking skills,
or because they have taken an Emergency First Responder course, or because they know
their way around a large city. However, if their conflict partners do not value these areas of
expertise, the expertise does not bring power. Power in relationships depends on control of
resources valued by a partner.
Many conflicts go awry because one person believes their own expertise in, for
instance, child rearing, Spanish, or map-reading gives them power in certain situations.
One case where the expertise did not activate power was in a group of women friends visit-
ing Costa Rica. One of the leaders spoke Spanish. She developed a good conversational
relationship with several local guides who wanted to take the women on a zip-line tour of
the tropical canopy. However, when the women saw the height of the platforms, and the
length of the zip-lines, they opted out. No matter how hard the leader tried to convince the
women that the guides thought the activity was perfectly safe, translating the Spanish with
great skill, the group had already made up their minds—reassurance or no reassurance,
they were not climbing to those platforms.
Increasing another’s dependencies on you can be constructive or destructive. In the
following case, mutual dependence is constructive at the beginning, but in the end, a
destructive outcome occurred.
In “Power Play,” a seemingly unequal power situation was suddenly balanced by the
resignation of the assistant—a classic “got you now” move on the part of the low-power
person. The case illustrates how power dynamics are shifting and dynamic. Each of the
participants in this conflict attempted to exercise power. When the administrative assistant
assured the physician that she would take care of the arrangements for the conference and
then did not, she destructively increased (temporarily) the doctor’s dependence on her.
If the physician had rethought the flexible time needs of the office staff and then given
desired resources (flexible time off), this change would have been an example of construc-
tively increasing dependencies.
One way to reduce power others have over you is to change your goals. If after a few
years in a job a person is not valued by an organization, a change of goals is likely to occur.
The disenchanted employee might remark, “It is not important to me what they pay me for
this job. I’ll just do the minimal amount of work and expend all my creative energy on my
hobbies.” By altering the importance of the goal, you reduce the power the other has over
you. The often-heard remark “There are other fish in the sea,” used when a person has been
Application 4.4 Power Play
In a medical clinic in a rural town, a conflict over flextime had been brewing for several months.
Many of the staff wanted the option of flexible time. The doctor in charge of the clinic traveled
frequently since she often had to give presentations elsewhere. The administrative assistant espe-
cially wanted the option of flexible time. She was unhappy with the way the office policies were set
up, believing them to be unfairly weighted toward professional staff and against hourly employees.
When the assistant had problems with child care or needed to go to an appointment, she was not
allowed to leave if the director was gone. The physician in charge also was a working mother, but
she was able to work out her own schedule. The administrative assistant used tactics that a person
stuck in a low-power position would typically use—calling in sick, forgetting, making mistakes,
losing files, promising and then not following through, and complaining to other staff members.
The director had begun a process of documenting her poor work. When the doctor went to a pro-
fessional meeting in another state, she discovered that no hotel reservations had been made, the
conference fee had not been paid, and the materials for her presentation to the conference had
not arrived. When the doctor arrived back at the office, ready to fire the assistant, she found that
the assistant had resigned without notice.
dropped in a love affair, is just another way of saying that you have alternative sources for
accomplishing your goals. (Or at least you hope you do, and you want other people to think
you do!)
Communication plays a vital role in working out interdependence. People try to per-
suade others that they are valuable, that they need to be connected, and that the other’s
needs can be met best in a constructive relationship with the person doing the persuading.
Communicating about the value you offer another is one way of increasing your power; the
other becomes more dependent on you, and thus you have more power in that relationship.
For example, recently Cheryl moved to a new state, and she immediately began going out
with Jon, who had lived there for a long time. Jon took Cheryl on trips, introduced her to
his wide circle of friends, and introduced her to cross-country skiing, rafting, and rock
climbing. When Cheryl became disenchanted with Jon, resulting in one attempt to break
up with him, he reminded her of all the plans they had made for the future, and that he was
going to include her on a big rafting trip Cheryl wanted to do. Jon was attempting to per-
suade Cheryl of the importance of what he provided her—he tried to influence her percep-
tion of his positive power. Unfortunately for Jon, Cheryl was unhappy enough that she had
already investigated other ways to raft and climb, and decided a mediocre relationship was
not what she wanted. His influence attempt failed, and they broke up.
Power in Distressed Systems

When power is viewed as either/or (what you win I lose), or only the property of the des-
ignated leader, conflict resolution suffers. Take a look again at the list of words associated
with power—most show an either/or association. Power in this approach enables one to
move others against their will; in a power struggle, a contest of wills is set in motion. Many
people think that power is only force—pushing others around against their will. Even in
a relationship in which people once practiced shared, or both/and power (“we are in this
together”), when the system becomes distressed, they may begin to slide down the slippery
slope of coercion and dirty tricks.
Once a relationship, whether at work, in friendships, or in intimate relationships, begins
to go downhill, concerns with power heighten. As the relationship deteriorates, the parties
shift to a more overt focus on power—a shift reflected in their discourse. In fact, a character-
istic of destructive conflict is that parties start thinking and talking about power. Almost no
one thinks that he or she has more power than the other, at least when emotions run very high.
We think the other has more power, which then justifies dirty tricks and our own attempt to
gain more power. We often see ourselves as blameless victims of the other’s abuse of power.
When partners are caught in this destructive cycle of either/or power, their communicative
interactions show a lot of “one up” responses, or attempts to demonstrate conversational
power over each other (Sabourin and Stamp 1995). Partners might say, “She is just trying to
control me,” or “I’m not going to let him push me around.” People keep score—watching the
points they have vis-à-vis the other party. Struggles over power relate directly to relationship
satisfaction. Figure 4.1 demonstrates how concerns rank in a distressed relationship.
The focus for a dispute becomes power—who has the right to move the other. The
teenager who says, “You can’t boss me around,” the spouse who shouts, “Just who do you
think you are?” and the co-worker who states, “Well, we’ll see who the boss is around
here!” are all giving power center stage in the dispute. These struggles often escalate.
Dissatisfied couples are more than three times as likely to escalate episodes and focus on
power than satisfied couples (Alberts and Driscoll 1992). Using the terms developed in
Chapter 3, power becomes the overriding relationship concern. We are not suggesting that
power shouldn’t be an issue. Rather, we suggest that when power itself becomes the main
focus of thinking and discussion, parties are likely to be involved in an escalating power
struggle, and may well have temporarily lost sight of their original interests.
Notice in Figure 4.2 that disputes also involve “rights” and “interests.” Rights, simi-
lar to our idea of core concerns, include not being discriminated against, being free from
Figure 4.1 Power Emphasized in a Distressed System
Power
Rights
Interests
Distressed system
Source: From William Ury, Jeanne M. Brett, and Stephen B. Goldberg, Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to
Cut the Costs of Conflict. Copyright © 1988 Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, San Francisco, California.
Figure 4.2 Power Deemphasized in an Effective System
Power
Rights
Interests
Effective system
Source: From William Ury, Jeanne M. Brett, and Stephen B. Goldberg, Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to
Cut the Costs of Conflict. Copyright © 1988 Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, San Francisco, California.
physical harm, and other constitutional and legal guarantees citizens should expect. Some-
times it is more appropriate that disputes get settled on the basis of rights rather than power
or interests. For example, if the famous Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954 outlaw-
ing segregation in public schools had been settled on the basis of the power structure at
the time, it would have resulted in a struggle in the streets, and continued violation of the
interests of Black Americans. If, on the other hand, it had been settled only on the basis
of interests, Brown might have negotiated her way into school, but the country’s social
policy would not have changed. Instead, the groundbreaking decision was decided by the
Supreme Court on the basis of rights.
When we solve a dispute based on interests, the goals and desires of the parties are
the key elements. For instance, if you don’t want your teenage son to use the car, you can
(1) tell him it is not OK as long as you pay the expenses in the house (power); (2) let him
know that you own the car (rights); or (3) let him know that you are dissatisfied with how
he drives, and until you are convinced he will be safe, you will not lend the car (interests).
Thus, disputes can occur on any one of the three levels. When power becomes the only
personal goal, the dispute is harder to resolve. Moving to interests helps manage a conflict
constructively.
Figure 4.2 illustrates an effective system. Notice that the emphasis is on interests with
rights and power playing smaller but still important roles. As you can see by compar-
ing Figure 4.1 with Figure 4.2, an overemphasis on power is symptomatic of a distressed
system.
Assessing Your Relational Power

Since power is a dynamic product of shifting relationships, the amount of power parties
have at any one time cannot be measured precisely. One maxim to remember when you are
in the middle of a conflict is this: Each person firmly believes that the other person has
more power. Many of the pathologies or misuses of power arise because the image people
have of their power (and others’) is unrealistic. Because each person in the conflict so often
believes that he or she is in the low-power position, the conflict escalates. People use devi-
ous and manipulative tactics, since they truly think they have no choice. This perception
of power is almost always inaccurate. In this section, ways of assessing power more accu-
rately are presented. Remember that in emotionally involving conflicts, we usually feel out
of power. Therefore, feelings are not the only, or even a very accurate, guide.
What might be a better way to assess the various power issues when your emotions are
involved? Thinking about power, with the use of concepts and assessment instruments, can
help engage your objectivity instead of subjective feelings only. As you think through what
is happening, what has happened in the past, and what you would like to have happen in
future interactions, you can gain a healthy distance on a current conflict.
The most common way to measure power is to compare the relative resources of
the parties in a conflict. For instance, in organizational work, it is generally agreed that
power accrues to “those departments that are most instrumental in bringing in or providing
resources which are highly valued by the total organization” (McCall 1979).
People have power in the organization when they
∙ are in a position to deal with important problems;
∙ have control over significant resources valued by others;
∙ are lucky or skilled enough to bring problems and resources together at the same
time;
∙ are centrally connected in the work flow of the organization;
∙ are not easily replaced; and
∙ have successfully used their power in the past (McCall 1979).
This method of assessing power places high reliance on the resources controlled by
a person or group on whom the organization is dependent. Although it provides a useful
starting point, this method has two limitations:
1. It defines resources too narrowly (Berger 1980).
2. It puts too much emphasis on the source of the influence. Overemphasis on the
source is characteristic of most studies of power, such as the “bases of power” work
of Raven and French (1956). Most assessments of power view the relationship as
one-way. Person A is seen as exerting influence on person B. In diagram form, the
relationship looks like this:
A B
The relational perspective presented thus far characterizes the communication as two-
way: Each participant has power with the other. The relationship looks like this:
A B
Most research presents power as (1) a static individual property, (2) only surveys one
respondent in a conflict, and (3) disregards the interactional elements of power.
In a research study wives were asked questions such as “Who decides where the fam-
ily will take a vacation?” “Who decides what job to take?” “Who has the last say about
spending money?” “Who is the real boss in the family?” or “Who would decide how you
would spend $300?”1 It seemed reasonable that the most powerful member of a family
would be the one who made most of the important decisions; unfortunately, there were dif-
ficulties with this popular research method of measuring power. First, the researchers did
not ask both spouses the questions. They might have received different answers if they had
asked each partner separately. Second, the questions asked for “perceived authority”—who
the participants thought made most of the decisions rather than who actually did. As a
result, the participants may well have answered according to who they thought should have
been making decisions. Given the sex-role stereotypes of that time period, a woman may
have not wanted to tell a researcher that she was “the real boss.” Whether it was accurate or
not, women usually reported that their husbands made most of the decisions.
At one time or another, you have probably judged someone as powerful because he
or she controlled the conversation. Many researchers have studied conversational control
in couples. Assuming that conversational control and power were the same thing, these
researchers studied who talked the most, who interrupted the most, who changed topics
the most, and who engaged in more “one up” moves. These two measures of power, deci-
sion making and conversational control, do not measure the same concept. If you look at
different measures of power, you will probably reach different conclusions about who is
most powerful.
As we have noted, the key is how the parties perceive the power each can exercise.
Conflict parties need to be asked (1) what are your sources of power, (2) what are the other
party’s sources of power, and (3) how does the other see you and his or her sources of
power? The participants’ perceptions are almost always different from an outsider’s view.
One happy, long-term couple married for 40 years participated in a decision-making
task in which disagreements between the two were reported back to them, and they were
asked to reach common agreement. At the end they were asked, “who changed their mind
the most” and both of them said “both equally,” yet a videotape of the couple clearly showed
the husband making four changes and the wife none. As an outsider, you would say that the
woman was clearly “more powerful,” yet as conflict participants they simply did not per-
ceive power between them in that narrow, outcome-only, way. Seeing themselves as equals
may have had something to do with their long-term happy marriage!
Who Has the Power? An

Application 4.5
Observation and Assessment
With a group of people serving as the audience, try this experiment in class: watch a movie, role-
play, or video presentation of two people in conflict. Or have two class members take on a prob-
lem-solving task or role-play an argument. They might argue about where to go for spring break,
whether to ask a roommate to leave a living arrangement, or how fairly to assign grades to a group
project. The audience makes notes throughout the conversation about who has the most power,
and why. Then discuss your observations and your assessment.
You will probably find that almost everyone in the audience has a different way of
deciding who really is more powerful. For some it may be nonverbal dominance; for
1
Some of the classic studies are Safilios-Rothschild 1970; Heer 1963; Kenkel 1957; McDonald 1980;
Turk and Bell 1972; Mishler and Waxler 1968; Gray-Little 1982.
others, vocal quality; for still others, amount of time spent in overt argument, or who wins
at the end, or who appears to “let the other win.” In essence, no single validating criterion
for assessing power has been discovered by researchers; such a specific technique does
not exist. Power is especially difficult to assess when influence is exercised covertly, or in
hidden ways. Most of us have trouble deciphering covert power, or choices made based on
another person’s potential influence. For example, Will is an outdoorsman who would like
to take a weeklong fishing trip, but he knows that his wife will not like being left alone
for such an extended period of time since she works and would have to assume all the care
of the children. Will proposes a 2-day trip and, in the process, talks more and controls the
discussion. An observer might guess that Will was in control of both process and outcome,
since he and his wife agree that he will go on the 2-day trip. Yet Will’s conversation was
structured around his estimate of his wife’s reaction. Her power was important to his deci-
sion, yet an outside observer could not have known that without asking. Implicit influence
carries as much weight as explicit behavior.
People who look the most powerful to outsiders often are less powerful than they
appear. Without knowing the structure of a relationship, you cannot guess who has the
most power, since people balance their power currencies in complex ways. For instance,
if one person appears to let the other do the talking for the group, the person who gives
tacit permission for the other to talk is actually controlling the situation. Gender issues
come into play, since women in our culture cannot usually become the powerful aggressor
without facing social disapproval or physical danger. Many women learn to seek safety and
power by hiding, becoming invisible, or becoming relationally oriented. Whereas a wom-
an’s safety and power needs are often met by becoming smaller and less visible, the tradi-
tional masculine style of seeking safety is by becoming the feared individual, by becoming
bigger and more visible (Kaschak 1992, 126). A woman’s overt use of power often exposes
her to denigration and attack, whereas a man’s overt use of power may be viewed as evi-
dence that he is a good leader. Overt use of power by men at home is judged less positively
than in some work situations.
Power can be exercised in ways that look weak. Sometimes the most powerful behav-
ior is to appear to submit, yet resist, or act in a nonresistant way. An example of this form
of power was Martin Luther King Jr.’s civil rights tactics, based on Gandhian principles.
Civil rights workers in the 1950s and 1960s received training telling them to sit down
when confronted by powerful persons, to protect their bodies if attacked but not to attack
in response, and to use nonaggressive verbal responses. As happened in India, weakness in
the face of strength made stronger persons question their use of force and coercion. A less
productive “weak” way of exercising power is that of the apocryphal army private who,
when ordered to do KP duty, does as sloppy a job as possible while asking constantly, “Is
this the way? Am I doing it right?” This “reluctant soldier” example can be seen in offices,
in families, and on work crews where one person is “trying” (but failing) to get it right. The
supervisor, parent, or crew boss then gets disgusted and does the job himself or herself.
Another indirect way to gain power is to refuse to cooperate when other people are
depending on you. When this tactic is used in conjunction with unexpressed anger, it is
labeled passive aggressive behavior. In passive aggression, a person acts aggressively
(in one’s own self-interest, without much regard for the other) by being passive, or uncon-
cerned, when the other person needs a response. Passive aggression is displayed when
people feel they have a low level of power, whether they do or not, since it appears to be a
safer way of expressing anger, resentment, or hostility than stating such feelings directly.
Additionally, “nice” people may use passive aggression instead of direct conflict state-
ments because they have been taught that it is not nice to engage in conflict. Here is a list
of common passive aggressive behaviors:
∙ Forgetting appointments, promises, and agreements.
∙ Slipping and saying unkind things, then apologizing.
∙ Acting out nonverbally, such as by slamming doors and banging objects, but denying
that anything is wrong.
∙ Getting confused, tearful, sarcastic, or helpless when certain topics come up.
∙ Getting sick when you’ve promised to do something.
∙ Scheduling two things at once.
∙ Evading situations so that others are inconvenienced.
The following case presents an example of passive aggressive communication.
Application 4.6 Deteriorating Roommate Relationship
Two college roommates have a practice of borrowing each other’s possessions. When Jan and
Cheryl first moved in together, they decided it would be inconvenient to ask each time they wanted
to use an item or borrow an article of clothing. Cheryl has been keeping Jan’s things longer than
Jan wants her to, however, often causing Jan to have to look for her textbooks, car keys, sweaters,
skis, and gloves. Recently, Jan lost several of Cheryl’s possessions, including a sweater she took to
a party. She feels justified since Cheryl has been misusing the privilege, too. They are avoiding the
issue and spending time away from each other. Role-play a direct instead of indirect way for Jan to
ask for change. Remember to verbalize content and relationship concerns, specific goals, and face-
saving techniques. Show listening and problem solving. Try the role-play two ways: (1) Both people
cooperate and (2) Cheryl does not cooperate at first. She instead becomes defensive, attacks,
withdraws, or acts in any other way you want to play out a destructive conflict. Show how she and
Jan might finally resolve the conflict (realistically!).
A better strategy would be to confront angry feelings directly instead of indirectly.

The college professor who double-schedules may feel overloaded and underappreciated
but could tell people directly that too many appointments are interfering with the rest of
his or her work.
Balancing Power Constructively

Parties assess power differently. In addition, each party retains sources of power even dur-
ing times of power imbalance (Oyamot, Fuglestad, and Snyder 2010). Such power asym-
metries produce predictable effects on both the higher- and lower-power parties, and the
imbalance produces systemwide effects on the relationship.
Strong emotions accompany different levels of power. Think of times when you have
felt yourself to be in a position of low power. People often feel hostility or hatred, say-
ing “I simply cannot stand his attitude. If I never had to deal with him again I’d be glad.”
Or you may feel helpless rage or helpless lethargy. When you feel low power in a relation-
ship that matters, you may feel worthless or unable to influence your situation. You may
feel sad, defeated, or depressed. When people hold the high-power position in an important
relationship they may not feel universally pleased at all. People who have a lot of power
often feel burdened with decision-making responsibilities, worry about being blamed, and
feel responsible for doing more than is good for them. Many type A, overworking people
with designated high power do not report feeling happy. Instead, they feel misunderstood,
resentful of how much responsibility they feel, and unhappy with the attitude or perfor-
mance of others. Neither high nor low positions automatically bring about certain feelings.
But you can be sure that an imbalance of power does bring about strong feelings. These
feelings become part of the conflict.
See Figure 4.3 for a concise visual summary of our view of power and its effects.
Cameron and Whetten (1995) inspired this graph, which we adapted to an interpersonal
orientation. As you can see, both lack of power (low power) and excessive power (high
power) lead to ineffective communication behaviors. Sufficient power, to address a specific
conflict, results in optimum communication behavior.
Up to this point, various words have been used almost interchangeably—shared
power, both/and power, power with, and collaboration. Is this practice of power realistic
and possible?
We have come to appreciate that collaboration and the constructive realignment of
power is usually best for all concerned, with the following conditions:
∙ The high-power person is not abusing power in a way that takes away all possibility
of influence by the lower-power person or persons.
Figure 4.3 Interpersonal Power
Effective Empowered
Communication behavior
Ineffective Lack of power Abuse of power
Inadequate Sufficient Excessive
Interpersonal power
∙ One person is not lying, distorting, or suffering from a disorder of character, such as
sociopathy. A sociopath is a person who has no conscience and is not moved by the
plight of others.
∙ The long-term gains are worth the expenditure of energy.
Competitive power has its place, too. We view competitive power as being useful
when the following conditions are in place:
∙ Crucial needs of one party are at stake—needs the person is not willing to compro-
mise about unless no other option exists. These might be basic human rights, eco-
nomic or personal survival, protection of children, avoidance of harm, or protection
of a crucial sense of self.
∙ Competition can lead to collaboration—when the playing field becomes more level.
Since destructive conflicts are often set off by struggles over perceived power, and
given that power is relational, power always is in a state of change. The crucial question
is how one goes about changing power. If you struggle with someone because you are
trying to block their exercise of power—and they are probably doing the same thing. The
paradox is that the more you struggle against someone, the less power you will have with
that person. From a both/and perspective, the more powerful we feel, the more we are set-
ting ourselves up for resistance from the other party. Put bluntly, power against is eventu-
ally blocked and diminished. “Power over human beings is very complex. Other human
beings can answer back, fight back, obey or disobey, argue and try to exercise power over
us, which a tree never does” (Boulding 1989, 53). We must recognize that while we need
to exercise appropriate power and influence, the other person needs to exercise influence
as well, so we might as well cooperate with each other so we can both be effective. The
both/and perspective assumes that everyone wants to accomplish their cherished goals
and that you need each other to do that. Since it is the other who is blocking you (and you
blocking him or her), integrative power moves beyond the tug-of-war to a new plane of
relationship.
While destructive struggling for power leads to a downward spiral of more thwarting
and interference and to a lessened ability to accomplish goals, shared power leads to a syn-
ergy of power creation through productive communication. As you collaborate with each
other, each of you stops directly interfering with the other and actively assists the other in
getting what he or she wants. The communication between you serves a transcendent func-
tion. Transcendence mean that some new way, or third way, develops that rises above what
each party thought would be possible. With cooperation more power arises than each pre-
dicts. Shared power, not at all weak and tentative, creates energy. Sharing power requires
great skill.
Collaboration depends on a model of shared power. Rarely will you be in a life situa-
tion in which all the power resides with the other; collaboration is almost always possible.
Satisfied couples will “pass, refocus, mitigate or respond” to the other rather than struggle
over power (Alberts and Driscoll 1992). The sense of “we-ness,” of working together, pulls
romantic couples through their first big fight (Siegert and Stamp 1994). Successful couples
work together to repair their relationship instead of making the other wrong. If they do not
learn to seek repairs as a matter of course, they do not stay together (Gottman 1999). When
power is not shared, ultimately the relationship will end, with a firing or new job sought
and found, in divorce, abandonment, breakup, emotional withdrawing, or the continuation

of a grim, joyless relationship.
Application 4.7 It’s Their Fault
Bruce is the production manager of a large electronics manufacturing facility, and Len is the engi-
neering manager. Each supervises a five-person team of managers. Len’s engineers are respon-
sible for (1) designing systems for production and (2) quality control. Bruce’s production employees
are responsible for output—they have to get the product out the door and shipped to customers.
Over a 2-year period, the two teams seemed gridlocked. Engineering staff members complained,
both in their staff meetings and to the plant manager, saying, “Those production people—we
design good systems for them to follow; they don’t follow them, and then quality slips. What is their
problem?” Meanwhile, production employees openly criticized the engineers on the manufacturing
floor by saying, “They think they are so hot—yet their elaborate designs don’t work, they treat us
like slaves, and they don’t care how we are being held to a minimum number of units produced.”
Finally, the plant manager had to ask for outside help. The production and engineering manag-
ers met, as did the work teams. They agreed to (1) shift quality control to the production side, (2)
ask the engineers to provide training to the production employees so they could enforce quality
control, (3) not make any more negative public comments about the other team, and (4) require the
production and engineering managers to attend each other’s staff meetings. What was a “power-
against” situation became, over a period of a month, a “power-with” situation. The plant manager
was very pleased that his two key players in engineering and production were now helping each
other accomplish their goals rather than interfering with one another. Production output and quality
both improved. A new system of rebalanced power made collaboration possible.
In a small group in class, analyze the success of the change described in this case.
What made the change possible? Specify how the either/or model changed to a shared
power model. Take these steps and apply them to another power-against situation. What
are some general principles you can use in the future?
Conflict participants are more likely to make a long-range relationship work if they
move toward balancing power. Models for productive power balancing, although scarce,
do exist. In everyday life, individuals can learn to cooperate and to reach agreements if
power is distributed equitably. For relationships to work over time, people must continually
realign the power balance as the situation warrants.
What can friends, co-workers, family members, or intimates do when they discover
power asymmetry in their relationships? They can (1) work to make the relationships more
equal, (2) try to convince themselves and their partners that the relationships are more equal
than they might seem (by restoring psychological equality), or (3) eventually abandon the
unbalanced relationships. For instance, family members negotiating household tasks may
say, “I should get more credit for taking out the garbage than you do for cleaning the coun-
ters because I hate to take out the garbage and you don’t mind doing the counters.” The
person who hates taking out garbage is trying to balance power by restoring psychological
fairness. Without some power balancing, this relationship is headed toward distress.
An interpersonal relationship with a power disparity between participants can
achieve a more productive focus by moving toward balance. The destructive attempts by
lower-power parties to balance power are a move toward balance, but power must be bal-
anced productively to lead to effective management. Power must be realigned in order for
sharing to exist.
High Power
The exercise of social power for most people in Western culture is satisfying and even
produces joy. High power is often a goal people strive for; those with less power often
feel, “If I were in charge, things would be a lot better around here.” The major difficulty
with maintaining higher power than someone else is that it may corrupt you. Corruption
describes more than a crooked politician or business person. Corruption means moral rot-
tenness; an inability to maintain the integrity of the self. A constant high level of power
may eat into one’s view of self and other, forming a perceptual distortion that may take
on monstrous proportions. Higher-power persons, organizations, or nations may develop
altered views of themselves and other parties. Constant feelings of higher power can result
in these consequences:
1. A “taste for power” and the restless pursuit of more power as an end in itself.
2. The temptation to use institutional resources illegally as a means of self-enrichment.
3. False feedback concerning self-worth and the development of new values designed to
protect power.
4. The devaluing of the less powerful and the avoidance of close social contact with
them (Kipnis 1976, 178).
5. Lying with no fear of consequences.
6. Bullying, with no regard for effects on others.
7. Blindness about genuine problems—they cannot penetrate the shield of power.
8. Demeaning others.
9. Denigration of entire classes of people perceived as less powerful than oneself.
10. Physical and sexual harassment and abuse.
The undesirable consequences of a power imbalance can take many forms (Coleman,
Kugler, Mitchinson, Chung, and Mussallam 2010). The person highest in power may claim
benevolence, that harmful actions are actually “for the good of the other person,” thereby
dismissing the negative consequences to the lower-power person. When someone is fired
from an organization, it is common to hear, “It was for her or his own good—he or she will
be better off spending time doing X.” People who are high in power condemned low-power
people’s cheating yet cheated more themselves—a clear case of hypocrisy (Lammars,
Stapel, and Galinsky 2010). Further, when there is a recognizable victim and perpetrator,
the high-power perpetrator regards the angry response of the victim as unjustified and even
causing aggression (Baumeister, Stillwell, and Wotman 1990).
Persons in helping professions, such as ministers, teachers, health workers, and thera-
pists, can lose touch with their need to exercise power in order to feel valued and needed.
Although helpers undoubtedly are in their professions in order to help, they also must have
“helpees,” or they have no function. How can a physician be a physician without people
who need healing? How can teachers teach if no one values learning? If helpers do not
understand that helping also contributes to their own sense of self-worth and personal ful-
fillment, the act of helping can become a high-power move. Just as during the Inquisition,
when the learned scholars were sure that they were helping the persons accused of her-
esy, an unrestrained high power may make the powerful party blind to the havoc wreaked
on the less-powerful party. You may have had times in your personal relationships when
power became unbalanced; if so, you know the harm that unrestrained power can bring,
whether you were the one with too much power or the one without enough power. Striv-
ing for higher power can destroy even the best of relationships. For example, in intimate
relationships, the person who is least invested in the relationship has the most power. Para-
doxically, decreasing the investment for the purpose of gaining higher power is ultimately
self-defeating, since you have to continue your decreasingly fragile investment in order to
remain more powerful. And the lessened dependence can lead to the demise of the rela-
tionship. If you convince yourself that “I don’t have to put up with this,” then you usually
won’t have a relationship. Finally, persons, organizations, or nations with higher power
can deny that power is exercised; they may deny that there is a conflict (it is a “minor dis-
agreement”) or use any of the other forms of denial mentioned earlier. Unrestrained higher
power can corrupt the power holder’s view of the self, view of the other, and it can set the
stage for continued unproductive relationship interaction.
Power Balancing from a Position of High Power
Restraint Higher-power parties can limit their power by refusing to use all the currencies
they have at their disposal. A physically powerful spouse who refuses to inflict damage on
the other spouse would be one example of a higher-power party limiting power usage. A
manager can decide to coach an underperforming employee rather than beginning a paper
trail designed to fire the person. A man can/should decide to have sex only if his partner (or
victim) is able to give consent. Parents can decide that physical punishment of young chil-
dren is never justified. A person with high power can decide not to shame or humiliate oth-
ers for any reason. A person who controls the money in a system can abstain from making
threats based on money. If the high-power person refuses to engage in “natural” responses,
this restraint can alter the automatic nature of a destructive cycle. In this self-regulating
approach, power is given to a higher partnership or unit, instead of being used as an indi-
vidual right. Just as a nation might avoid an invasion, preferring to work instead with the
United Nations and diplomacy, so a spouse might avoid hurting the partner, with words
or deeds, because he does not want to risk ending the relationship. Art, a college teacher,
refuses to use punitive power when students present last-minute pleadings for more time
to write final papers. Instead, Art simply says, “Why don’t you set a deadline for the final
paper that you can meet, and it will be fine with me. What day and time do you want to
hand it in?”
A couple found a way to lower one member’s economic power, thereby providing
more balance in their relationship. They valued monetary equality and were used to hav-
ing separate accounts and almost the same disposable income. The woman received an
unexpected raise, however, and suddenly had more money to spend. They started arguing
frequently because she would propose expensive weekends for recreation and her partner
had difficulty paying for his half. In response to their increasingly destructive arguments,
they decided to set up an automatic savings withdrawal from her monthly paycheck, to be
put in a joint long-term savings plan. Then they would use this money occasionally for a
“lost weekend.” Even though she still earned more money than her partner, the negative
effect on them as a couple was lessened, while she gained the long-term advantages of sav-
ing more money. She limited her immediate use of higher monetary power, with positive
effects on the couple’s balance of power.
Empowerment of Low-Power People by High-Power People Sometimes it is clearly
to the advantage of higher-power groups or individuals to purposely enhance the power of
lower-power groups or individuals. Without this restructuring of power, working or inti-
mate relationships may end or rigidify into bitter, silent, passive aggressive, and unsatis-
factory entanglements. Currencies valued by higher-power people can be developed by
lower-power people if they are allowed more training, more decision-making power, or
more freedom. For instance, in one social service agency, Sharon was not doing well at
directing a grant-funded program on finding housing for homeless people. Jan, the director
of the agency, realized that Sharon was a good fund-raiser but not a good program director.
By switching Sharon’s job description, the agency gained a good employee instead of con-
tinuing a series of negative job evaluations that would have resulted in Sharon’s eventual
termination.
Empowerment also occurs when third parties are invested with the power to inter-
vene on the behalf of less powerful persons. For instance, children who have been abused
by their parents or caretakers can be empowered if their plight is reported to the proper
agency. The legal system will provide attorneys, caseworkers to monitor the situation,
counselors to work with the parents, judges to arbitrate decisions involving the children,
and free services to help the children recover from the effects of the abuse. Our society has
decided, by passing certain laws, that extreme forms of power imbalance, such as abuse,
will not be allowed to continue when they are discovered. Children are empowered by laws
that give them rights and give responsibilities to others.
Empowerment also works between friends, romantic partners, and co-workers. When
someone is frustrated and shares that with you, he or she may be open to trying alterna-
tive approaches to heal a relationship. Paul is a general contractor who builds houses and
kept talking to his friend Stan about how it was impossible for him to please the family for
whom he was building. Stan asked, “So who makes the decisions that keep changing?” It
turned out that Paul was responding to the architect (brother of the husband), then the wife
would show up at the job site and ask for changes when the architect was not there. Then
the husband would show up and ask Paul to undo the changes. Stan suggested that Paul
have all three meet with him at the same time and say, “We need to clarify decision making
so the costs on this house stay within your limits.”
Low Power
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, does absolute powerlessness make you pure?
—Harry Shearer
Just as power can corrupt, powerlessness can also corrupt (May 1972). If lower-power people
are continually subjected to harsh treatment or lack of goal attainment, they are likely to pro-
duce some organized resistance to the higher-power people. When one reaches the stage where
“nothing matters” (one cannot attain goals through accepted means), violence or despair results.
Too much losing does not build character; it builds aggression, or apathy. Asymmetry
in perceived power can lead to coercion in an attempt to “get even.” Most examples of
retaliation occur because the person doing the retaliating perceives himself or herself to be
in a low-power situation.
In severe, repetitive conflicts, both parties feel low power, and they continually make
moves to increase their power at the other’s expense. If each party believes she or he has
less power than the other, a destructive, escalating spiral of conflict usually results. Each
party attempts to increase power at the other’s expense, with the next round bringing yet
more destructive moves. Each person feels “behind” and justified in engaging in manipula-
tive moves because of what (he or she thinks) the other did.
Jake and Julie, a couple in their early 40s, have been divorced for 2 years. They share
custody of their 14-year-old son, Tom. Julie works as a nurse in a highly stressful clinic.
Jake works as a seasonal construction worker. At the time of their divorce, Jake and Julie
both insist that the other received more of the marital resources than they should have.
Feeling low power and that they were taken advantage of by the other, they have contin-
ued a bitter argument about who should pay for Tom’s school expenses, even his food and
clothes. Both say, “Ask your mother/father” when Tom needs anything extra. Because each
feels lower power than their former partner, they are communicating to Tom that he has no
power with them. More important, they are communicating helpless hostility to their son
about the other parent—very damaging to the son. They are in a high-power position with
their son. Tom, not surprisingly, is alternately furious and depressed, since he cannot get
either parent to pay attention to his needs. He has started hanging out at his grandmother’s
house (Julie’s mom). Grandmother feeds Tom and takes him shopping for clothes. Jake
takes this as further evidence that he does not need to provide anything extra. The school
counselor has asked all the adults to come in for a session to talk through how to keep Tom
in school (he has been skipping school). How might the counselor talk in a productive way
about recognizing the needs of each person, especially Tom? What constructive approach
might get the parents to focus on their son instead of their own perceived low power?
(Hint: Shame will not work!)
Application 4.8 Helping Tom
Counselor: I would like to hear from all three of you about what your understanding
of Tom’s needs right now might be. (Tom is present with his parents and
grandmother.)
Julie: I think Tom needs to know that we all love him and want him to do well in
school and life.
Jake: He needs to understand that school is his doorway to getting a decent job.
Grandmother: I’d rather not speculate. Tom is always welcome at my house, except when
he should be at school. (The conversations progresses for a while. Tom sits
silently.)
(continued)
Application 4.8 Helping Tom
Counselor: Tom, would you respond to what your folks have said? Start with what you
would say your greatest concern is right now.
Tom: I’m embarrassed that I don’t have money to buy my basketball uniform. I
leave school sometimes because Grandma will let me have lunch at her
house. I can’t talk to Mom or Dad about my school expenses, money for
food at school and after school. They are so pissed off at each other that
no one takes me seriously. It’s easier at Grandma’s house.
Tom’s interests should lead the adults into a more constructive conversation. When adults have
divorced, counselors usually focus on problem solving, not emotions, which would lead the for-
mer couple into unresolved issues that led to the divorce. In this case, Tom’s need for support for
school expenses should remain the focus of problem solving.
Developing passive-aggressive behavior, a low-power tactic, affects the whole system.

Lower-power parties will sometimes destroy a relationship as the ultimate move to bring
about a balance of power. Jake and Julie are perilously close to destroying their relation-
ships with their son.
The combination of denigration from the higher-power person and destructive power-
balancing tactics from the lower-power person contributes to a system of interactions that
is not productive for either party. A cyclical, degenerative, destructive conflict spiral char-
acterizes the ongoing interactions. The power disparity promotes struggles over power,
increases the underlying bases of the conflict, and leads to lessened involvement in the
relationship for both parties. When the conflict parties enter a spiral, nobody wins.
Application 4.9 Nobody Wins

Craig is a supervisor in a community agency, and Marilyn is a staff member who works part time. Craig
coerces Marilyn into taking on a community volunteer program—a job she neither wants nor has time to
develop at a competent level. Marilyn resists working on the program, while deadlines come closer. Craig,
noticing her avoidance, humiliates her in a public meeting by pointing out what has not been done, and
asking her to agree to work hard on the program. Marilyn accedes (on the surface) but talks to her friends
about how poorly she is treated. After 2 months of Craig’s disapproval of her progress and of her seeking
social support and a new job elsewhere, she brings Craig her resignation.
Internally, Marilyn might have some of these thoughts and feelings:

Craig should not have put me in the position to work with all these community volunteers. I am still learn-
ing my other work, and this is a job for a more experienced person. He manipulated me by telling me
how important the work is. I agree, but I’m not the person to do it. I’m 20 years younger than most of the
volunteers and I don’t have the history with the agency to know their jobs. I feel foolish; I’m trying to do
something I don’t know how to do. When I ask Craig or the others for help, they brush me off. I think they
want the volunteers, but don’t want to put in the time to train them. And they don’t want to train me. I don’t
(continued)
Application 4.9 Nobody Wins

want to resign, but I can’t take this. Being asked at the staff meeting if I would “work harder” was insulting.
If I can find another job, I’m going.
Internally, Craig may have had some of these thoughts and feelings:
Marilyn is a smart young staff member. I wish we could hire her full time. She’s perfect for the volunteer
program because she is enthusiastic and inspiring. I’m disappointed at how many people she’s signed up,
though. I thought she would really jump on this chance. If she succeeds in setting up 20 or 30 well-trained
volunteers, I’m sure I can get the funding for a full-time job for her. But lately she’s seemed to me to be
whining and not really trying. She’s asking for help that none of us has time to give. Doesn’t she know how
important this task is? When I brought it up at the staff meeting, I was trying to encourage her, but I could
tell she was upset. I guess I’d better talk to her. I don’t want to lose her.
Answer the following questions about Craig and Marilyn:

How might Marilyn have changed her low-power stance into a constructive one? How might Craig have
changed his “power-over” stance into a constructive one? What might a beginning dialogue that is con-
structive sound like?
Craig did not accomplish his original goal of starting the community program, and
Marilyn will leave her job. They achieved a power balance in an unproductive manner, much
like in a game of leapfrog. When one person is behind, he or she then jumps into the lead, and
the other person, sensing that he or she is “losing,” does the same. Pretty soon the relationship is
suffering, and neither person has achieved any of the original goals. In cases of power disparity,
agreements remain shaky. The ever-accelerating unproductive moves result from attempts to
balance power. The alternative is to balance the power through productive avenues and recog-
nize that with extreme power asymmetry, effective long-term management is not likely.
Bullying
Bullying is “ongoing, persistent badgering, harassment and psychological terrorizing . . .

that demoralizes, dehumanizes and isolates those targeted” (Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, and
Alberts 2005).
Bullying depends on extremes of low and high power. Individuals who experience bully-
ing feel helpless, hopeless, and powerless to change their situation—classic feelings that
can lead to depression and despair. Attention finally is moving to the plights of bullied
children and young adults. Berry (2016) summarizes the prevalence of bullying, media
and organizational attention focusing on bullying, and relates stories that his students
shared with him and each other. His book provides an excellent place to begin understand-
ing bullying from a communication, relationship, and identity perspective. The statistics
summarized here, reported by Berry, present the scope of the cultural problem,
∙ About 30% of youth in middle school report involvement in bullying as a bully or
victim.
∙ Some researchers estimate that many more youth, up to 40–80%, experience
bullying, but many do not report what happens.
∙ According to The Bully Project (2013), one in three schoolchildren between grades
6 and 10 are affected by bullying, and six of ten teenagers say they witness bullying
once a day.
∙ Most students think schools respond poorly to bullying.
Hostile school environments particularly affect LGBTQ students. Berry (2016) sum-
marizes research evidence that reports that over half of students feel unsafe at school due
to sexual orientation or gender expression. Homophobic comments abound, not only from
students but from teachers and school staff members. Many students, from half to three-
quarters, experienced verbal and physical harassment.
Cyberbullying affects youth and young adults worldwide. The Berkman Center for
Internet and Society at Harvard concluded, for example, that online bullying of peers is the
number one threat to juveniles using social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter,
and MySpace (Palfrey, Sacco, Boyd, DeBonis, and Internet Safety Technical Task Force
2009).
You undoubtedly can tell your own stories of bullying, both in person and on the
media. Cyberbullying can be defined as any repeated or hostile or aggressive behavior
performed electronic or digital media intended to inflict harm or discomfort, where the
victim feels powerless to stop the interaction (Berry 2016; Davis et al. 2015; Raskauskas &
Huynh 2015). With today’s technology, victims receive texts, posts, or e-mail contact any
time of day or night, without face-to-face contact. This immersion in social media means
than victimizers can bully for revenge, shaming, peer-normative pressure, and hostile
entertainment 24 hours a day (Rafferty and Vander Ven 2014). College-age young adults
experience online aggression, as well as younger school-age children and teens.
Why do people engage in online aggression? One motivation is cyber sanctioning—
hostile pressure for the victim to change behavior. A kind of vigilante justice seems to
motivate some victimizers. A very common motivation has to do with dating behavior,
with hostile messages from ex-partners being common. As one woman reported, “A girl
was upset that I was dating her ex-boyfriend . . . she started posting between her and her
friend bad things about me and said my boyfriend was cheating. This went on for a good
six months” (Rafferty and Vander Ven 2014, 369). Insults composed most of this kind of
sanctioning.
Another motivation is an attempt to struggle over power. Threats of violence and sham-
ing, often also having to do with dating relationships, predominate. One man reported,
“This guy that I stole a girlfriend from years ago. Started telling me I was going to die . . .”
(Rafferty and Vender Ven 2014, 372). Recipients must decide whether the threat is cred-
ible, or whether the motivation is creating fear, and shaming the victim. Such assessment is
helped greatly by support and conversation of friends.
A third motivation for online aggression was hostile entertainment—trolling to hurt,
humiliate, annoy, or provoke, to get a response from the victim. This is a kind of indirect
power struggle—“If I can get a response, I’m powerful.” Anonymity gives the perpetrator
a sense of power over the other person.
This kind of vicious bullying has been linked to suicidal thoughts and actual sui-
cide, especially but not entirely with younger teens. As a parent or friend of bullying vic-
tims, you may also feel helpless to know how to intervene or provide support. Youth who
employ problem-focused coping with bullying, such as taking steps to change the stressful
situation by asking for help from others and taking effective steps themselves suffer fewer
negative, long-lasting effects of their victimization than do youth who try to deal with the
problem by internalizing, externalizing, or avoiding. Internalizing leads to a negative view
of oneself; externalizing can lead to ineffective cycles of revenge and retaliation. Avoiding
can lead youth and young adults to effective action, such as blocking messages, changing
one’s use of social media, or taking a break from all involvement in social media. The most
effective coping strategies change a young person from a low-power victim to a higher-
power advocate for oneself. Self-efficacy, doing something that works, leads to much less
stress and negative impact on oneself (Fitzpatrick and Bussey 2014).
Workplace bullying also occurs. Defining workplace bullying as “repeated and per-
sistent patterns of negative workplace behavior that is ongoing for six months or longer
in duration,” 23% of the over 1,000 respondents had experienced bullying in a university
setting (Keashly and Neuman 2008). When counting victims and witnesses to bullying, a
full 45% of the survey respondents experienced bullying. In respect to the United States as
a whole, a random survey of 7,000 individuals, 37% reported a direct experience with bul-
lying (Workplace Bullying Institute and Zogby International 2007). Such bullying is four
times more prevalent than illegal forms of “harassment.” And as you might guess, most
bullies are bosses (72%). Women are affected more than men. Further, while we hear about
the United States being “lawsuit happy,” only 3% of those affected filed lawsuits. Those
targeted are the ones most often who lose their jobs.
The effects of workplace bullying everywhere are clear—the “target’s psychologi-
cal, occupational and family functioning decline” (Leymann 1990). Job performance
slips and the organization’s reputation is damaged (Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, and Alberts
2004).
Bullying at work can take many forms—“supervisors abusing subordinates, same-
level workers tormenting peers, and coworkers ‘ganging up’ on an individual” (Einarsen
1999; Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, and Alberts 2004). When asked about his or her experience,
the recipient of bullying feels vulnerable and tortured, that it is a “fixed fight” (Tracy et al.
2004). Targets of bullying suffer long-term, sometimes permanent, damage (Arseneault,
Bowes, and Shakoor 2010; Einarsen and Mikkelsen 2003; Leymann 1990).
Bystanders who are not directly involved in the conflict can help, as long as they avoid
becoming victims themselves. This means that bystanders or observers in friend groups,
at school, and at work take on a sense of responsibility beyond themselves, for their peers.
Conversation among friends can help bystanders make effective choices to intervene. This
strategy will become especially important as we discuss sexual assault and harassment.
Sexual Assault and Harassment

Sexual assault and harassment has received so much attention in the press that it hardly
needs to be documented. You can readily find resources to further investigate this problem.
For the purposes of a study of conflict, several principals apply:
∙ Sexual assault is a crime of power, with coercive sex as the weapon.
∙ Men and women must recognize, discuss, and learn the elements of consent, when
no means no, and when the potential victim must be seen as competent and incompe-
tent to give consent (extreme use of alcohol and physical incapacity render consent
meaningless).
∙ Sexual assault grows in a climate of disrespect for women, of homophobia, and when
men are encouraged by peers to engage in power over behavior, and when adult
administrators, coaches, and friends think the problem is not a big issue.
∙ Sexual assault affects same-sex people, especially men, who are both bullied and
assaulted.
∙ Bystanders can make an important difference in the outcomes of assault and harass-
ment. Assault and harassment are a community problem, not individual problems.
Application 4.10 My Experiences with Bullying and Assault
Write a short paper or personal essay about your own experiences with bullying, assault, or harass-
ment. You may have been, in varying situations, a recipient (victim), perpetrator, or bystander. For
each situation, answer the following questions:
1. What happened—describe without evaluating or labeling.
2. What were your emotions and so far as you know, the emotions of others?
3. What strategies did you use to deal with the situation? How effective were these?
4. What effects can you identify for each of these situations?
5. Discuss any of the above situations that you are willing to with your small group in class.
6. After the discussion, answer this question: What did I learn from listening and sharing these
experiences of bullying, assault, or harassment?
Harassment is shaming, demeaning, hostile teasing, using bullying statements, draw-

ing unwelcome attention to a person’s body whether verbal or physical, and making dis-
criminatory statements based on a person’s gender expression. While laws exist to provide
remedies for workplace harassment or the creation of a hostile work environment, these
cases become notoriously difficult to prosecute.
Strategies for Low-Power Situations
The following strategies have proved helpful for people in low-power situations. The goal
for conflict resolution is to temporarily balance power so the conflict may unfold construc-
tively. Communication strategies derive from excellent, practiced conversation skills. All
personality types sometimes experience low power, and while no one type holds an advan-
tage in the attempt to balance power, gaining a repertoire of power-balancing tactics will
add to your sense of confidence, self-efficacy, and resilience.
Focus on Interdependence Lower-power individuals can highlight the parties’ depen-
dencies as a way to balance power. Higher-power individuals usually try to minimize inter-
dependence; therefore, lower-power individuals need to point out how the conflict parties
are more related than it might appear. (The strategy of searching for overlapping interests
will be discussed in detail in Chapter 8.) When individuals are scared and feeling power-
less, they often angrily demand that their own needs be met or begin to use threats. These
are ineffective approaches, since the higher-power person has the ability to move away or
lessen the interdependence.
A thorough understanding of interdependence clarifies power relationships. People are

interdependent because they need to get things done and also be acknowledged for their con-
tributions to tasks and relationship enhancement. If John and Sarah are dating and decide to
live together, they both increase their dependence on the other. Following Emerson’s formula
of power-dependence relations, as John becomes more dependent on Sarah, Sarah’s power
increases. Likewise, Sarah becomes more dependent on John, thereby increasing his power.
When two people elevate their dependence on each other, both increase their sources of
power. Notice that this process is not codependence (depending on another’s weakness to
feel self-esteem), but is mutual dependence (depending on each other’s strengths to feel a
sense of satisfaction and self-esteem). Each one expands his or her currencies that are val-
ued by the other. Therefore, power in enduring relationships is not finite—it is an expand-
able commodity. The focus shouldn’t be the singular amount of power each one has but the
balance of power between them. John and Sarah may have little power with each other at the
beginning of their relationship. Later, as each develops more power, the other’s power rises
approximately equally. The absolute amount of power may change, but the crucial issue is
the comparative dependence that John and Sarah have on each other.
Application 4.11 Quick! It’s an Emergency!
Conflict Parties: Tom, a midlevel manager in an office; Helen, the secretary for four people in the office.
Repetitive Conflict: Often when Helen is too busy to get all her work done immediately, she will
set priorities and plan her schedule based on known deadlines. Tom’s work makes up the largest
share of Helen’s work. Tom and the other three supervisors rank equally on the organizational
scale. However, when Tom is busy and pressed, he rushes to Helen’s desk with work that needs to
be done immediately. Following is a typical exchange:
Tom: Helen, I have just this one little thing that has to go out today.
Helen [sighing]: Yes, Tom, I know—just one little thing. But I have to get this out for Joe
today, and it must be done first.
Tom puts more pressure on Helen to do his job first by saying that it won’t take long and that just
this once she needs to respond to the emergency pressures. Helen gets angry and tries to per-
suade him that it can wait one more day. Then she pouts a bit.
Helen: I am only one person, you know. Just put it there and I’ll try to get it done.
Tom: Helen, you’re a sweetheart. When this madhouse calms down, I’ll take you
out to lunch. I knew I could count on you.
Helen then stays late to finish the work, but she asks her office manager to speak to Tom again
about interfering with her ability to manage her work. Tom apologizes a few days later.
Tom: I didn’t mean to make you mad. I didn’t think that one report was going to
tick you off so much.
Helen: It’s not just that I was angry—it’s that I can’t get my work done in a way that
honors each person’s needs if I’m dropping what I’m doing to always focus
on your work.
In the “Quick! It’s an Emergency!” case, Tom appears to have more power because he
is the boss and Helen has less because she occupies a lower position in the organization.
A closer look reveals that the parties are fairly well balanced in power. The balancing act
is, however, taking a toll on their relationship, and the work could be managed more cre-
atively. Tom is dependent on Helen for getting his work out error free, quickly, and with the
benefit of Helen’s experience. He depends on Helen to respond to his needs before those
of the others in the office, since he is carrying more of the work in the office than the other
three at his level. He sees himself as a pleasant and noncontrolling person whose employ-
ees work because they want to. He depends on Helen to view him as a reasonable and
professional person because this is how he views himself. Helen, meanwhile, depends on
Tom for some of her self-esteem. She prizes her ability to skillfully organize her work so
that it gets done on time. She wants to be treated as a valuable decision-making employee.
She knows, too, that if Tom becomes dissatisfied with her work, he will complain to her
immediate supervisor in the office, and she might be overlooked for promotions or might
even lose her job. So Helen depends on Tom for positive ratings, a good work climate,
and self-esteem. Restructuring their interactions could allow them to achieve more of their
independent and interdependent goals. Helen could ask Tom to help her respond to dis-
parate pressures; Tom could ask Helen how to set up a way to take care of emergencies.
A problem-solving approach to conflict management would allow both to balance their
power more collaboratively.
The Power of Calm Persistence Lower-power people in a conflict often can gain more
equal power by persisting in their requests. Substantive change, when power is unequal,
seldom comes about through intense, angry confrontation. Rather, change results from
careful thinking and from planning for small, manageable moves based on a solid under-
standing of the problem. When intensity is high, people react rather than observe and think.
We overfocus on the other instead of analyzing the problem, moving toward polarization.
Lower-power parties cannot afford to blow up. One source of power the lower-power
person has, however, is careful, calm analysis that directs attention to the problem. If
lower-power people have patience and avoid giving up out of frustration, they gain “per-
sistence value”; the higher-power person or group often listens and collaborates so an
ongoing problem will be solved and time can be spent on something else. If you use per-
sistence, be sure of your facts, your thinking, and your fairness. Persuasive skills become
crucial. The low-power person must analyze the situation well, taking into account what
will be judged appropriate, effective, credible, and practical. The lower-power person
must show respect.
Several examples of calm persistence illustrate this strategy for increasing one’s
power. Ellen is the head of a large, successful consulting organization. She travels a lot and
has a tightly organized schedule. When her daughter was young, she whined and pouted
about not being able to go horseback riding along with her mother. This was ineffective
since Ellen hates whining. Finally, Linda, at age 8, hit upon a solution. She asked her
mother for a “management meeting.” In this meeting, she first of all impressed her mother
with her relationship savvy, and she pointed out her complaints and asked for what she
wanted. This approach so impressed her mother that, with affection and humor, they broke
through an avoid-pursue spiral. Linda gained power, and Ellen felt much better about how
the two of them were spending time. This was a savvy little girl!
Individuals in conflict with institutions often experience frustrating, demeaning pow-

erlessness as they are shunted from one person to the next. Phone calls are not returned and
frustration rises dramatically. Sometimes only calm, clear persistence increases an indi-
vidual’s power enough for him or her to be heard and dealt with. Some suggestions for
dealing with large, impersonal institutions are as follows:
∙ Identify the individuals on the phone by name and ask for them when you call back.
∙ Stay pleasant and calm. State clearly what you want, and ask for help in solving the
problem.
∙ Follow the rules even if you think they are ridiculous. If they want five copies of a
form, typed and folded a certain way, give it to them. Then point out that you have
followed the rules and expect results.
∙ Write simple, clear memos summarizing what you want, what you have done, and
when you expect a response.
∙ Tell them all the steps you took to try to get a response from them.
∙ Avoid taking out your frustration on low-power individuals in the organization. They
may respond with “I’m just following the rules,” avoiding personal responsibility—
and who could blame them? Instead, be courteous and ask for help. Humor always
helps if it is not at someone else’s expense.
∙ Escalate only reluctantly. For example, if a nurse in charge of your health care does
not carry through, give her chances to correct the errors. Then, if it doesn’t happen,
speak directly to her supervisor or the doctor, saying “I don’t want to get anyone in
trouble, but my files still have not been sent and it has been a week. Can you help
move this along?”
Stay Actively Engaged Remaining in a low-power position, assuming your weakness is

permanent, and using destructive tactics benefits no one, not even the high-power person.
The higher-power person, who has the power to define the terms of the conflict in his or
her own favor, often understands only one side of the conflict. Therefore, the higher-power
person may not be able to find a constructive solution. People who perceive themselves as
powerless usually do not talk effectively about their own needs and, after a while, adopt a
self-defeating, accommodating style that becomes fixed, or they may use passive-aggressive
tactics. If the fixed power position becomes intolerable, the lower-power person may act out
of desperation, doing something such as resigning, leaving a romantic relationship, blowing
up and antagonizing the high-power person so that he or she ends the relationship, or threat-
ening self-destructive behavior, such as by saying, “Just do what you want. Just tell me what
to do. I’m tired of fighting. You win.” This unstable situation invites escalation on the other
person’s part and may lead to the end of the relationship.
Rather than remaining in self-defeating spirals, Lerner (1989, 35) suggests that people
in low-power positions adopt the following moves:
∙ Speak up and present a balanced picture of strengths as well as weaknesses. One
might say, “It’s true that I am afraid to ask my boss for a raise, even though you want
me to. But I earn a steady paycheck and budget and plan well for our family. I want
some credit for what I do already contribute.”
∙ Make clear what one’s beliefs, values, and priorities are, and then keep one’s behav-
ior congruent with these. An entry-level accountant in a large firm was asked by
the comptroller to falsify taxable deductions, hiding some of the benefits given to
employees. The accountant, just out of school and a single parent, said, “When you
hired me I said I was committed to doing good work and being an honest accoun-
tant. What you are asking me to do is against the code of ethics and could result in
my losing my license. I can’t afford to take that risk. I’m sure you’ll understand my
position.”
∙ Stay emotionally connected to significant others even when things get intense. It takes
courage for a low-power person to let another person affect him or her. One teenage
son was furious and hurt when his father decided to remarry, since the son did not
like the wife-to-be and felt any support of his father’s decision would be disloyal to
his mother. After some tough thinking, he decided to tell his father honestly how he
felt, what he did not like, and what he feared about the new marriage instead of tak-
ing another way out, such as angrily leaving his father’s house to live with his mother
in another state. This conversation balanced the power between father and son in an
entirely new way.
∙ State differences, and allow others to do the same. The easiest, but often not the best,
way for a low-power person to manage conflict is to avoid engagement. Again, cour-
age is required to bring up differences when a power imbalance is in place. Brad,
a college freshman, worked at a fast-food place during school. He was unhappy
because the manager kept hiring unqualified people (without checking their refer-
ences) and then expected Brad to train them and provide supervision, even though
Brad was barely making more than minimum wage. Finally Brad told the manager,
“I have a different way of looking at whom you should hire. I try to do a good job
for you, but I have to work with people who have no experience and don’t know how
to work as a team. Would you consider letting me sit in on interviews and look over
applications?” The manager was pleased with Brad’s initiative and said yes.
Metacommunication
Another way to balance power is to transcend the win/lose structure by jointly working to
preserve the relationship during conflict. By metacommunicating during or before conflicts
(talking about the relationship or about how the parties will handle their conflicts), the par-
ties can agree about behaviors that will not be allowed (such as leaving during a fight).
Metacommunication means being verbally explicit about the communication. Andy
says, “Brian, I notice that every time I suggest an idea, you openly disagree with it. That
makes me not want to contribute any new ideas. Can we figure out a way for you to not always
disagree with me?” This courteous confrontation would be a forceful metacommunication.
A more intense example of metacommunication involves a woman who is being
pressured for sex by a man she knows only slightly. The communication might sound
like this:
He: I thought you liked me—come on, it’ll be fun.
She: I thought I liked you too, but you are pressuring me, and that’s not my definition of
fun. It’s unacceptable to me. Please stop—now!
He: Don’t be such a bitch!

She: I’m saying what I need and want and I expect you to listen up. (She does not argue
about his label, or call him names back.)
In a situation of sexual harassment at work, a man (bystander) who is not directly

involved might say:
Friend: Hey, Matt, I don’t think Ellie likes the way you talk to her. Maybe lose the comments
about her body?
Matt: Oh, she knows I’m just kidding.
Friend: I’m not so sure. You could ask her. I don’t think it’s respectful of her, though. She’s a
great program manager—don’t want to lose her.
Explicit comment about the communication activates different currencies and will
alter the power balance. In the above example, Matt probably wants to be seen as a good
manager by the people in the office. The friend who speaks up recognizes that currency,
which can take the place of the teasing/hostile communication the manager has been using.
The person temporarily weaker in the relationship can draw on the relationship currencies,
as if the relationship were a bank and the currencies were savings. The weaker party can
claim extra time, space, money, training, empathy, or other special considerations until the
power is brought back into an approximation of balance. The following case presents an
example of an interpersonal peacemaking agreement.
Application 4.12 I’m Not Your Slave!
Cheryl and Melissa are two teenage girls who share a room in a foster home. Cheryl is more outgo-
ing and friendly than Melissa, who is shy in groups but demanding of Cheryl’s time and attention.
Recently, Melissa increased small demands for Cheryl to shut the door, turn down the radio, bring
her a drink of water, include her in texting gossip, and lend her clothes, jewelry, and other items.
Cheryl, after discussing the situation with several helpers, decided she did not want to continue to
respond to Melissa in anger and disdain. (e.g., “Get your own water—I’m not your slave!”) She then
took the following steps to restore the balance of power:
1. She reminded Melissa that they had agreements about chores in the room, made at a family
meeting, that Cheryl wanted to follow.
2. She voluntarily began to fill Melissa in on happenings at school that involved people whom
Melissa admired.
3. She complied with Melissa’s requests, such as getting her a drink of water, the first time they
were made, but then said, “I’m glad to get it this once, but remember we agreed to be equal
in who does what in the room. So you’re on your own now.”
4. She asked Melissa to go to basketball games with her and her friends. Melissa became
sociable, made new friends of her own, and needed Cheryl’s assistance less.
Granted, Cheryl was a remarkably compassionate teenager. But she reported that her life was
better, too, since she got along so much better with her roommate.
What to Say When You Are Low Power

Some specific low-power statements can be used to balance power. When you are feeling
low power, you might try the following, but remember, these won’t be effective if you don’t
mean them:
∙ Validating or acknowledging the other: “Noah, I appreciate how you . . .”
∙ Using “I” statements: “What I would like is . . .”
∙ Asking the higher-power person what he or she needs: “Sara, I’m wondering what
would work for you in this situation?”
∙ Letting the other person know what he or she can gain from helping you: “Kathy, if
I’m included in the discussions, I’ll be able to support the decisions more fully.”
∙ Announcing intended escalation and looking for a way out: “Patricia, I really don’t
want to go to the union on this problem. I want to reach some understanding so we
can put this to rest.” (This is a thromise, a combination of a threat and a promise.)
∙ Expressing optimism: “Juan, I know that if we just sit down together and talk we can
resolve this pretty easily.”
Slow the Process.

∙ “I feel like a tidal wave of reasons why we can’t try my idea are washing over me.
Could we slow down the discussion and take my ideas one by one?”
Show Concern for the Relationship.

∙ “I feel like we’re digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole. How can we get
out of this?” (Fisher and Shapiro 2005, 48)
Use a Metaphor.
∙ “I feel like I’m trying to swim upstream. How can we make this easier for both of
us?” (Fisher and Shapiro 2005, 48)
Say Something True and Affirming About the Other Person,

Then Make a Request.
∙ “Noah, you’ve been open to new ideas from interns in the past. I remember how
pleased I was when you let us try out a staff meeting just for interns. But now we’re
pretty isolated since you aren’t coming to our meetings. What would make it possible
for you to be involved in our internship year more fully? We all value your mentoring
a lot.”
∙ Man to his romantic partner: “Jennifer, we agreed to accommodate what each other
likes for recreation. You’ve been fantastic about learning to cross-country ski and
pushing yourself to ski farther. I really appreciate that. But you’ve refused to go to
any sports events with me, even though I’ve been going to more concerts than I really
want to, and I’m going to films that you choose. I’d be happy if you’d go to the major
games with me. I enjoy them more when you are there. Would you be willing to do
that?”
Describe the Situation.

∙ A 13-year-old girl to her mother: “Mom, this one week with Dad and one week
with you worked okay when I was younger. But now it’s impossible for me to plan
and see my friends and keep doing my extracurricular activities. You and Dad don’t
communicate with each other except through me. I’ve had it. Something needs to
change—please!!!”
∙ Student employee to boss: “Greg, I like this job a lot and am glad you’ve given me
extra responsibility. I’m finding, however, that closing up at night when I am not able
to plan for it makes me get behind on my schoolwork. It would work better for me if
we set a schedule and you or I train someone else to do the closing when you aren’t
available.”
Balancing power requires courage and creativity.
Most of us are caught in a paradox of power. To be effective people, we need to maximize

our abilities, take advantage of opportunities, and use resources at our disposal so we can
lead the kind of lives we desire. Yet within the confines of an ongoing relationship, maximi-
zation of individual power is counterproductive for both the higher-power and lower-power
parties. Unrestrained maximization of individual power leads to damaged relations, destruc-
tive moves, more destructive countermoves, and the eventual ending of the relationship.
Since people are going to take steps to balance power—destructively, if no other means are
available—we can better manage conflict by working to balance power in productive and
creative ways. Equity in power reduces violence and enables all participants to continue
working for the good of all parties, even in conflict.
Summary
In this chapter we define power and note that people impede conflict management; extreme power imbal-
usually have negative connotations of power. Power ances characterizing bullying and sexual assault and
use is sometimes denied. We present bases of power. harassment are discussed. Various ways to deal with
Power is presented as a relational concept rather too much or too little power are described, with spe-
than as an attribute of the individual. Power curren- cific suggestions on how to balance power in posi-
cies are described as spendable items that can be used tive ways. Specific communication suggestions for
in conflict relationships. Power imbalances often people in low power end the chapter.
Key Terms
power 109 either/or power 115 designated power 119
power denial 112 ineffective communication resource control 120
relational theory of power 114 strategies 117 interpersonal linkages 120
both/and power 115 power currencies 118 communication skills 120
expertise 120 empowerment 137 power-dependence relations 144

perception of power 128 low power 138 calm persistence 145
power imbalance 131 bullying 140 metacommunication 147
high power 135 cyberbullying 141
Review Questions
1. Define power. 9. What does the acronym RICE stand for?
2. Describe your own orientation to power. 10. What makes power difficult to assess?
3. How does power operate in a distressed 11. What behaviors does feeling high power
system? lead to?
4. Clarify the difference between either/or power 12. What behaviors does feeling low power lead to?
and both/and power. 13. How is bullying related to power dynamics?
5. What are the ways people deny their use of 14. List some approaches to balancing power.
power? 15. What is metacommunication?
6. Explain the relational theory of power. 16. If you are low power, what can you do?
7. What are power-dependence relations?
8. Define and give examples of power currencies.
Chapter 5
Conflict Styles
To Get You Thinking about Conflict Styles . . .
I guess my boss is mad at me. I have left her three texts and she hasn’t returned them. I wonder
why she is avoiding me.
My boyfriend is really something. Every time I ask him to change something, even small things like
what time we’ll go out, he explodes.
John is a good manager. He can sit and listen to our problems without being defensive or jumping
in to argue. He somehow gets us all to work out our problems.
I handle conflicts with my wife by not talking to her. If I tell her she is doing something I don’t like,
she pouts for 2 days. It’s just better to avoid the whole thing.
Kevin and Susana are quite a pair! They fight all the time and don’t seem to get anywhere, except
ready for the next round of fighting.
The Nature of Styles

Conflict styles are patterned responses, or clusters of behavior, that people use in con-
flict. Style preferences develop over a person’s lifetime based on a complicated blend of
personal characteristics, life experiences, and family background (Hamilton and Tafoya
2012; Roloff 2009; Siffert and Schwarz 2011). By the time you are an adult, your basic
orientation to conflicts in particular contexts has developed. Your preferences for either
harmony and calm, or high-energy engagement, remain fairly consistent, depending on
context. For instance, with your siblings, you may engage in spirited conversation over the
dinner table, or you might avoid any direct talk about difficult issues with them. In most
relationships, we develop repetitive conflict styles.
Developing a repertoire of diverse styles may stretch you out of your comfort zone.
However, having a choice of styles will enhance your chances for productive conflict. This
chapter will introduce you to a variety of styles and their impact on relationships.
While you were born with various personality orientations, such as introversion and
extraversion, a preference for particular conflict styles develops based on your learning and
experience. You can change your style for a particular conflict once you become familiar
with different approaches. You may continue to prefer a certain style, but you also can
make choices.
Figure 5.1 Conflict Styles

High
Obliging Integrating
(accommodating) (collaborating)
Concern for Others
(cooperativeness)
Compromising
Dominating
Avoiding (Competing)
Low
Low High
Concern for Self
(assertiveness)
We use the Rahim (2011) classification of five conflict styles throughout this chapter.
The five styles are presented in Figure 5.1.1
The Rahim model can be called the dual concern model, meaning concern for self and
concern for other. Notice that avoiding represents low concern for the self and low concern for
the other. Obliging, commonly called accommodation, represents a low level of concern for
yourself but a high level of concern for others (you give them what they want). The opposite
of obliging is dominating—you are highly concerned for yourself but have only a low level of
concern for the other (you “go for it” regardless of the desires of the other). Dominating was
formerly termed competing. Integrating includes both your concerns and the other’s concerns.
Compromising is a middle ground, where moderate degrees of concern both for yourself and
the other show in the resolution of conflict. As you will discover, communication nuances
provide a complex understanding of conflict styles. Styles look differently and impact others
differently depending on how they are communicated (Guerrero and Gross 2014).
Assessing Your Styles

Before proceeding, take the style measure in the following box. This measure is adapted
from Rahim and Magner (1995) and will give you scores on each of the five styles of
avoiding, obliging, dominating, integrating, and compromising.
1
An overview of approaches to conflict styles can be found In Wilmot and Hocker (2011, 145); Rahim
(2011, 23–32); and a different approach in Runde and Flanagan (2007). Rahim’s chart is modified to fit
with the more standard presentation of low to high for a 2X2 matrix. Though the fundamental dimen-
sions of Rahim and Kilmann and Thomas (1975) are identical—assertiveness/cooperativeness (Kilmann
and Thomas) and concern for self/concern for others (Rahim), they use different labels for the styles.
Our thanks to Wang and Nasr 2011 for their rendition of the styles.
As you will see later, conflict styles often depend on different contexts and relationships
(Speakman and Ryals 2010). Therefore, fill out the style measure for two different situations,
A and B. For situation A describe a personal relationship—with a friend, romantic partner,
or close family member. Then, for situation B, pick a less personal relationship—someone
you are doing a class project with, someone you don’t know well at work, or some other less
personal close relation. The key is to pick specific people for situation A and situation B. Do
not fill out the scales “in general.”
To widen your perspective on styles, ask two different people, one whom you know
in a family or intimate relationship, and one person who knows you well from a group or
work environment. Choose people with whom you are not in a current conflict, and whom
you trust. Tell them that they will help you with your conflict class project, and that any
way they describe you will be helpful. Give them time to do this thoughtfully. Ask your two
friends to fill out Application 5.1 with your name, rather than person A and person B.
Application 5.1 Assessing Your Conflict Style
STYLES
Think of two different contexts (A and B) where you have/have experienced a conflict, disagree-
ment, argument, or disappointment with someone. An example might be someone you live with
and a work or group associate. Then, according to the following scale, fill in your scores for situa-
tion A and situation B. For each question, you will have two scares. For example, on question 1 the
scoring might look like this: 1.2 | 4
Write the name of each person for the two contexts here:
Person A _______________ Person B _______________
1 = never 2 = seldom 3 = sometimes 4 = often 5 = always
Person | Person
A|B
1. _____|_____ I avoid being “put on the spot”; I keep conflicts to myself.

2. _____|_____ I use my influence to get my ideas accepted.
3. _____|_____ I usually try to “split the difference” in order to resolve an issue.
4. _____|_____ I generally try to satisfy the other’s needs.
5. _____|_____ I try to investigate an issue to find a solution acceptable to us.
6. _____|_____ I usually avoid open discussion of my differences with the other.
7. _____|_____ I use my authority to make a decision in my favor.
8. _____|_____ I try to find a middle course to resolve an impasse.
9. _____|_____ I usually accommodate the other’s wishes.
10. _____|_____ I try to integrate my ideas with the other’s to come up with a decision jointly.
11. _____|_____ I try to stay away from disagreement with the other.
(continued)
Application 5.1 Assessing Your Conflict Style
12. _____|_____ I use my expertise to make a decision that favors me.

13. _____|_____ I propose a middle ground for breaking deadlocks.
14. _____|_____ I give in to the other’s wishes.
15. _____|_____ I try to work with the other to find solutions that satisfy both our expectations.
16. _____|_____ I try to keep my disagreements myself in order to avoid hard feelings.
17. _____|_____ I generally pursue my side of an issue.
18. _____|_____ I negotiate with the other to reach a compromise.
19. _____|_____ I often go with the other’s suggestions.
20. _____|_____ I exchange accurate information with the other so we can solve a problem together.
21. _____|_____ I try to avoid unpleasant exchanges with the other
22. _____|_____ I sometimes use my power to win.
23. _____|_____ I use “give and take” so that a compromise can be made.
24. _____|_____ I try to satisfy the other’s expectations.
25. _____|_____ I try to bring all our concerns out in the open so that the issues can be resolved.
Scoring: Add up your scores on the following questions:
A|B A|B A|B A|B A|B
1. _____|_____ 2. _____|_____ 3. _____|_____ 4. _____|_____ 5. _____|_____

6. _____|_____ 7. _____|_____ 8. _____|_____ 9. _____|_____ 10. _____|_____
11. _____|_____ 12. _____|_____ 13. _____|_____ 14. _____|_____ 15. _____|_____
16. _____|_____ 17. _____|_____ 18. _____|_____ 19. _____|_____ 20. _____|_____
21. _____|_____ 22. _____|_____ 23. _____|_____ 24. _____|_____ 25. _____|_____
_____|_____ _____|_____ _____|_____ _____|_____ _____|_____
A|B A|B A|B A|B A|B
Avoiding Dominating Compromising Obliging Integrating
Totals (competing) Totals (accommodating) (collaborating)
Totals Totals Totals
Source: Adapted from M. A. Rahim and N. R. Magner (1995), “Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Styles of Handling
Interpersonal Conflict: First-Order Factor Model and Its Invariance across Groups,” Journal of Applied Psychology 80,
no. 1, 122–132.
Now that you have self-assessments for the five styles, across two different con-
texts, and information from two others, you have four scores with which you can begin to
assess how your styles can be described. You may have different styles across the contexts
(slightly more than 50% of people do), or you may be consistent across the relationships.
Before we examine the five styles in depth, we look at our most fundamental orienta-
tion to conflict—avoidance or engagement.
Will You Avoid or Engage?

Look at your scores on the styles instrument. The scores for integrating, compromising,
and dominating flow from engaging the other. The scores for obliging and avoiding reflect
a tendency to move away from conflict. Take a moment and recall an intensely emotional
conflict. What was your first impulse—to engage the conflict or avoid it? For example,
people who have experienced trauma, whether the trauma has been physical violence,
Application 5.2 Styles in Your Group
Compare your scores on the styles measure for situation A and situation B, and your scores from
your two friends. In small groups, address these questions:
1. How many people of your group have relatively consistent styles in different contexts?
2. For those who have different answers, answer this question: “What is it about the two
situations that prompts me to use different styles?”
3. As a group, discuss the advantages of using the same style across two different situations.
4. What are the advantages of using different styles across the two situations?
5. Do personal situations and less personal situations call for different styles?
6. How do you respond to the scores provided by your two friends? What can you learn from
their responses?
sexual abuse, observing violent events, or trauma from separation from caregivers, trau-
matized people tend to avoid conflict (Johnson 2002, 42). Others, who, for instance, come
from a family where loud arguments are the norm, find engaging with the other a natural
choice. The following couple is struggling over how much engagement they will have:
Application 5.3 Avoid or Engage?
Brent: There is something bothering me.

Janette: I’m way too stressed out to talk about anything right now.
Brent: I’m upset about what you said about me at the party.
Janette: You’re picking on me. Leave me alone! Another time!
Brent: When are we going to talk about things that bug me? You never want to talk if I’m
upset.
Janette: You aren’t respecting what I told you about my stress. I’m going for a walk. See you later.
Role-play the couple portrayed above. What could each have done to:
• Assert his/her needs even more articulately, while
• Working with the stated needs of the other person?
Brent wants to engage in the conflict and Janette wants to protect herself by avoid-
ing it. Every time an issue surfaces, they will have to reach agreement on avoidance/
engagement, or this meta-conflict will override any other emerging issues. Their fundamental
issue is “How much conflict am I willing to risk to get what I want?” (Stuart 1980, 295) of
course, during the next conflict on a different topic, she may push for engagement and he
may avoid, but usually people in a relationship specialize in one approach or the other. This
overriding preference limits their ability to resolve their conflicts well.
Application 5.4 Thinking about Styles
Which is the best style for use in conflict? Read the four statements below and put a check mark by
the one that you feel is the most accurate:
1. Avoidance of conflicts leads to unhappy partnership and work relationships—it keeps
important issues buried.
2. Avoidance of unnecessary conflict helps promote harmony and keeps people from getting
involved in unnecessary upsets.
3. The only way to really manage conflict is to work through it by engaging the other person.
4. Engagement in conflict leads to escalatory spirals and hurt for all parties.
Both avoidance and engagement are workable options in different circumstances.

Recall the example of the couple struggling over their level of engagement. The woman’s
avoidance may have prompted the man to examine his reaction, decide that he was too
reactive in social situations, and back off to reduce the conflict. Or her avoidance may
have signaled to him that she did not care for his feelings and that he should start exiting
the relationship. Avoidance and lack of overt conflict may indicate that the participants are
unable to reach agreement and that they will gradually drift apart.
Avoidance of conflict often leads to a cycle that is self-perpetuating. Here is a typical
pattern that occurs when one avoids conflict:
∙ We think of conflict as bad.
∙ We get nervous about a conflict we are experiencing.
∙ We avoid the conflict as long as possible.
∙ The conflict gets out of control and must be confronted.
∙ We handle it badly (Lulofs 1994, 42).
Kristin, a conflict student, wrote an apt description of avoidance. “Whenever the con-
flict is one that is remotely serious, it gets dodged. Rather than stay and confront a prob-
lem, and heaven forbid hurt someone’s feelings, I run like mad. I find myself becoming a
snail, silent in my shell.” Avoidance is designed to protect the self and other from discord
and to preserve a relationship, yet the avoidance may lead to lack of clarity, set the stage for
later uncontrollable conflict, and lead back to even more avoidance.
Avoidance sometimes helps a relationship. Avoidance serves as a defense against
engagement, or confrontation, with a partner or co-worker when the person avoiding
decides that engaging a conflict would not serve a good purpose. Spouses who practice
avoidance within a bond of mutual affection often describe their marriage as happy. Fur-
thermore, if the relationship is not important to you, avoidance can conserve energy that
would be expended needlessly. Similarly, if an issue is trivial to you, your easiest choice
may be avoidance. In the workplace, you may have a supervisor who dislikes any conflict,
so avoiding touchy topics may be a wise choice for you, as long as you can determine how
to bring up new ideas.
The tension between avoiding and engaging can be seen in the following dialogue:
Application 5.5 Should I Bring Up the Problem or Let It Go?
Marjorie: Hi, Terry, what’s going on?

Terry: Oh, not much. [He is thinking, “If I say how upset I am, we’ll get into it, and I just
want to chill out.”]
Marjorie: You don’t look very happy. [She’s thinking, “I know you’re upset about my
motherʼs criticism of your job search plans. We might as well talk about it.”]
Terry: No big deal. [“I hope she just lets it go.”]
Marjorie: Are you mad at my mother? [“He must be more angry than I thought. This doesnʼt
look good. Uh-oh.”]
Terry: Why do you always have to blow everything out of proportion?
The conflict then escalates as they struggle tacitly over whether to engage or avoid. In Application 5.3
we asked you to role-play better options that preserved both individual needs and relational needs.
In the case of Marjorie and Terry, discuss how more self-disclosure could help this couple keep from
getting stuck in avoidance, or contain their escalation so the relationship is preserved.
In the following section, avoidance as a style will be presented.
Avoidance
We have discussed the basic choice of whether to avoid or to engage. In this section we will
explore the dynamics of avoidance as a style characterized by denial of the conflict, chang-
ing and avoiding topics, being noncommittal, and joking rather than dealing with the con-
flict at hand. The avoider may sidestep an issue by changing the topic or simply withdrawing
from dealing with the issue. Just as use of the competitive or dominating style does not mean
that one will get what one wants (because of interdependence with the other party), the use
of avoidance as a style does not mean that the avoider will be ineffective. For instance, if a
person is engaging in a conflict with a large organization, the organization can enhance its
position by not responding to correspondence on the matter. By pretending that the conflict
does not exist, the high-power party is freed from dealing with the low-power party.
Recent research calls into question some of the underlying assumptions of the dual
concern model. Avoidance may be more of a neutral style than one low in concern for
self and others. Nuances of motivation, skill, and context determine when and how people
avoid. For instance, argumentativeness as a skill or trait influences the approach of some-
one in conflict. If people do not have the skills of argumentation, or if they do not enjoy
arguing with others, they may be judged by others and by themselves as using an avoiding
style (Guerrero and Gross 2015). Argumentativeness differs from verbal aggressiveness,
which will be discussed later in this chapter.
Avoidance can serve similar functions in interpersonal conflicts. If two roommates

are both interested in the same woman, they may refuse to discuss the subject openly, even
if both of them are aware of the potential problem. If a couple is having difficulty deal-
ing with each other’s families, they may not feel free to discuss the problem. Avoiding a
conflict, however, does not prevent it. Conflict occurs when parties have the perception of
incompatible goals, regardless of the style they choose to use in responding to this percep-
tion. Avoidance is simply an alternative mode of conflict expression. Some of the advan-
tages and disadvantages of avoidance are presented in the following box.
Avoidance
ADVANTAGES
Avoidance can supply time to think of some other response to the conflict, as some people can-
not “think on their feet.” It is useful if the issue is trivial or if other important issues demand oneʼs
attention. If the relationship itself is unimportant to one person or if others can manage the conflict
without his or her involvement, avoidance is a wise choice. Avoidance can also keep one from
harm if he or she is in a relationship in which anything other than avoidance will bring a negative
response from the other party. If oneʼs goal is to keep the other party from influencing him or her,
then avoidance helps to accomplish that goal.
EXAMPLE:
Shirley is a 23-year-old graduate who has recently broken off a long relationship with a man her
parents like very much. They ask her to tell them “what went wrong” and offer to pay for a trip to
visit him. Shirley decides not to take them up on the trip offer and says, “Many things happened
to make us want to break up. Thanks for caring about me.” She avoided a discussion that she felt
would end in conflict.
DISADVANTAGES
Avoidance may signal to others that you do not “care enough to confront” them. It also gives the
impression that you cannot change. It allows conflict to simmer and heat up unnecessarily rather
than providing an avenue for reducing it. It keeps one from working through a conflict and rein-
forces the notion that conflict is best avoided. It allows partners each to follow their own course
and pretend there is no mutual influence when, in fact, each influences the other. It usually pre-
serves the conflict and sets the stage for a later explosion or backlash.
EXAMPLE:
Take the case of Sarah. She lives with her father who was recently divorced. He planned dinners
each night, but with Valentineʼs Day approaching Sarah planned a dinner with her boyfriend, Brent.
When Dad found out, he said, “Well the three of us could just go out.” Sarah, instead of engaging a
discussion about it, said, “It is ok if you come, it wasnʼt like we were planning on a fancy restaurant
or anything.” Later, Sarah said, “I know it is stupid that I canʼt stand up for myself to my dad, but
I feel sorry for him. He is so lonely and misses mom so much that it would break his heart if I told
him he smothers me and treats me like a child. I cannot figure out a way to explain my feelings to
him without offending him.” The chances are that sometime later, Sarah will explode at her dad.
In marriages, avoidance of conflict relates to lower satisfaction in general. Be aware

that stonewalling and avoidance are different approaches—stonewalling is a hostile tactic
(see Chapter 1). In one study, partners who believed in their first year of marriage that con-
flicts should be avoided also reported lower levels of happiness in the first 3 years of mar-
riage than those who believed that conflicts should not be avoided (Crohan 1992). In some
traditional marriages, however, stability and predictability are emphasized and continual
renegotiation of what the spouses expect of one another is not useful. As Pike and Sillars
(1985) found, “Satisfied couples used conflict avoidance to a greater extent than dissatisfied
couples” (319). Similarly, for couples who are not traditional and who lead somewhat inde-
pendent lives, “Avoidance may be a satisfying style of communication” (321).
Avoidance also can affect the one avoiding. Avoidance of important issues tends to
result in health problems, and worsens a sense of well-being avoidance (Braman 1998;
Nicolotti, el-Sheikh, and Whitson 2003).
Finally, older couples in our culture who avoid conflict can often be characterized
as happy, although inexpressive (Zietlow and Sillars 1988). Avoidance can be useful and
appropriate when (1) open communication is not an integral part of the system (family or
organization); (2) one does not want to invest the energy to “work through” the conflict to
reach agreement with the other—he or she wants to stay at arm’s length and not get close;
(3) the costs of confrontation are too high; or (4) one simply hasn’t learned how to engage
in collaborative conflict management.
Avoidance and Culture

Whether avoidance is productive or destructive generally depends on the cultural con-
texts (Komarraju, Dollinger, and Lovell 2008). People within diverse cultures often
have different reasons for avoiding. For instance, in one study comparing American and
Chinese people, three different reasons emerged for avoiding: (1) protecting the avoider
from harm, (2) maintaining positive mood, or (3) for spiritual or philosophical reasons
(Feng and Wilson 2011). There are, of course, differences across different collectiv-
ist cultures on avoidance (Leung, Brew, Zhang, and Zang 2011). One study compared
Chinese, Korean, and Japanese employees and found that the Japanese were more likely
to avoid (Kim, Wang, Kondo, and Kim 2007). The Japanese avoid conflict in order to
preserve congeniality and consensus and out of sensitivity to others’ feelings. In Japan,
when one avoids, the implicit social hierarchy is reinforced—so avoidance makes sure
the social bonds are not disrupted (Ohbuchi and Atsumi 2010). In China, the appropri-
ateness of conflict behavior may be judged more positively than the effectiveness of the
behavior. In the United States, effectiveness of a partner’s conflict behavior ranks as
more important than appropriateness (Qin Zhang 2015).
In such collectivistic cultures, when you avoid a conflict, others will talk to you about
how to heal wounds, make amends, and solve the conflict in indirect ways. In individualistic
cultures, like the United States, on the other hand, if you avoid someone as the result of a
conflict, your friends might cheer you on, suggesting that you “don’t have to take that junk”
and making other escalatory suggestions. Depending on the culture, those around you push
you either to reconciliation or into continual fighting. In collectivistic cultures, one is “more
concerned with the group’s needs, goals and interests than with individualistic-oriented
interest” (Trubisky, Ting-Toomey, and Lin 1991, 67). Thus, avoidance serves different
functions in collectivistic cultures than in individualistic ones (Ohbuchi and Atsumi 2010).
In collectivistic cultures, avoidance represents “indirect working through,” but in individu-
alistic cultures, avoidance represents “indirect escalation.”
In Arab cultures, usually united by language and religion, ethnic identity remains
stronger than in the highly multicultural U.S. environment. Young Arab men, residing tem-
porarily in the United States, seem to prefer the avoiding style more than American young
men, which preserves the needs of the group rather than the individual (Khakimova, Yan
Bing Zhang, and Hall 2012). Because young people in Arab cultures are used to calling
on elders and community leaders for intervention in conflict (a third-party approach), we
would be mistaken to assume that Arab young men prefer avoidance. Again, this picture of
conflict styles remains nuanced and complicated.
The Avoid/Criticize Loop

In the avoid/criticize loop, two destructive communication behaviors come into play;
avoiding the topic while criticizing another person directly or indirectly. You avoid talking
about the actual conflict issues while at the same time criticizing. Examples of this avoid/
criticize construction follow:
∙ “I will talk with you about finances when you stop spending every single extra dollar
you make on your stupid, expensive toys.”
∙ “Barbara is really too sensitive to talk with about anything this important. I thought
you and I could work it out.” (criticizing another and forming a coalition)
∙ “I tried to talk with Peter about his leadership style, but he blew me off, so I called
this team meeting.” (gossip, coalitions, using power indirectly, avoiding the real issue
of Peter’s leadership style)
∙ “I will not deal with someone so devious.”
In these examples, the speakers indirectly ask others to accept a negative description
of their behavior before they talk, or the speakers avoid by involving others in indirect criti-
cism. No one wants to accept an unflattering description as a prerequisite for continuing a
conversation. The avoid/criticize system usually continues both avoidance and escalation,
because of frustration, resentment, and defensiveness. When you are the recipient of such
communication, say something like, “I don’t want to argue with you about your perception
of me. I’d like to talk about the issue of finances. If we have a trust issue, or disagree, I am
willing to talk about that. It doesn’t work for you to attack me and then expect me to be
open.” If you are brought into an indirect avoid/criticize situation, you might say, “I’d pre-
fer you talk with Peter about that, or if we all do,” or “I haven’t found Barbara impossible
to talk with. What have you tried?”
The avoid/criticize loop is common in professional circles and the business world. One
talks about others, but doesn’t join with them face-to-face to solve the problem. Especially
if you are good at your job, you can really get involved in criticizing others—“He doesn’t
understand the new initiative,” “She hasn’t the training to see this accurately,” “He is just
so negative I can’t stand to be in meetings with him.” Critical statements substitute for a
constructive request. We make the other wrong, through blaming and criticism, yet do not
give the other a chance to correct. When you add self-righteous indignation to the mix, the
conflict will not reach resolution.
Avoid
Criticize
Avoidant Communication Strategies

Below are some of the ways one can avoid a conflict.2
∙ Not speaking and remaining quiet.
∙ Refusing to answer or talk saying “I don’t have an opinion” or “Whatever you think
is fine with me” or “We will not have that discussion in this house.”
∙ Deflecting or changing the topic: “What do you think about this storm forecast?” or
“I don’t want to talk about it.”
∙ Talking in abstract terms (when someone is attacking your lack of commitment),
saying, “What do you think about the effects of long engagements?”
∙ Leave the scene—to physically exit a situation.
∙ Joking. Making a joke that diffuses the anger, changes the topic, or alters the mood to
impact the conflict.
∙ Smiling or laughing to change the mood.
∙ Asking questions—“Gee John, tell me again what was it like growing up in Iowa?”
∙ Supplying conflict irrelevant information.
Avoidance of the topic is, however, different from postponement. In the first example
Gloria uses avoidance, in the second, postponement.
Gloria is upset. She wants to talk to her husband, Sam, late at night. Sam, however, has
an appointment at eight o’clock in the morning.
Gloria: I am so upset that I can’t sleep. Whatever possessed you to talk about our summer
plans to Sara and Josh at the party? You know we’ve been trying to get free of doing
things with them. You said last week—
Sam: Can’t we talk about this in the morning?
2
For a complete listing of different coding schemes for avoidance and other styles, see Sillars, Canary,
and Tafoya 2004, Table 1.
Gloria: It’s fine for you to say that. You don’t have to deal with Sara when she calls tomor-
row to decide where we’ll travel for a joint vacation. I have to talk to her and tell her
we changed our minds.
Sam: I’m sorry I brought it up. But I’m sleepy, and I don’t want to talk about it.
At this point, the avoidance tactic Sam is using—“Maybe if I close my eyes all this
hassle will go away”—is certainly not productive. His twin goals—to get some sleep and
to avoid further antagonizing his wife—are not likely to be met. By this time Gloria is
probably angry not only about his lack of discretion at the party but also about his refusal
to talk to her about it. An example of a productive postponement tactic follows:
Sam: Gloria, I know you’re upset. I also feel foolish. But I am exhausted, and I really don’t
want to deal with all the issues now. When Sara calls tomorrow, tell her we haven’t
had a chance to talk yet and you’ll call her back. Then when I come home from work
tomorrow, we’ll discuss the whole thing.
Gloria: You always say that, and we never talk.
Sam: This time we will. We’ll sit down before dinner, banish the kids, and the two of us
will talk. I know you’re upset.
Gloria: OK, if we really will. I know it’s hard to know what to say in public like that. They
presume so much . . .
Postponement as a tactic works best when several conditions are present. First of
all, the emotional content of the conflict needs to be acknowledged while other issues
are deferred to a later time. Sam said, “I know you’re upset,” acknowledging the depth
of Gloria’s feelings. She would not probably go along with the postponement if he had
said, “It’s stupid for you to be upset. We’ll work it out later.” After the emotional content
is acknowledged, all parties have to agree on a time that is soon and realistic. If Sam had
said, “We’ll talk about it sometime soon,” that would not have been precise enough. The
other party has to believe that the postponer really means to bring up the issue later. Post-
ponement does not work well as a tactic if the other people involved think they are being
put off, never to return to the issue. Vague statements such as “We’ll have to work on that
sometime” or “Let’s all try harder to get along” are often giveaways that the person wants
avoidance rather than genuine postponement. Postponement can enhance or damage the
relationship conflict.
Although avoidance comes in many costumes, its function is always to deflect, avoid,
and not engage in the conflict. Whether a professor who is confronted about a grade says,
“That’s an interesting point. It brings up an interesting question” (abstract remark), or a
supervisor says, “That’s enough complaining. Let’s get back to the job” (topic shift), the
basic dynamic is the same—to avoid the conflict.
Dominating
A dominating, competitive, or “power over” style is characterized by aggressive and unco-
operative behavior—pursuing your own concerns at the expense of another. People with
dominating styles attempt to gain power by direct confrontation, by trying to “win” the
argument without adjusting to the other’s goals and desires. A person with a competi-
tive style is one who usually thinks it necessary to engage the other participant in overt
disagreement. The conflict is seen as a “battleground,” where winning is the goal, and
concern for the other is of little or no importance. Someone who adopts a competitive
style in conflicts would probably agree with statements such as, “Once I get wound up in
a heated discussion, I find it difficult to stop,” and “I like the excitement of engaging in
verbal fights.”
Dominating tactics can be employed in an assertive rather than an aggressive man-
ner. In this case, competition is a more descriptive word than dominating. Usually, how-
ever, aggression creeps into a competitive style. Whereas nonassertive people deny
themselves and inhibit their expression of feelings and open striving for goals, assertive
people enhance the self, work toward achieving desired goals, and are expressive. The
aggressive person, however, carries the desire for self-expression to the extreme. Goals
are accomplished at the expense of others. The aggressive style results in a put-down of
others while the aggressor actively works against their goals. The assertive person can be
competitive without berating, ridiculing, or damaging the other. The aggressive person is
competitive primarily by trying to destroy the opponent’s options. Verbal aggressiveness
hurts the face, self-esteem, or reputation of the other. When a person is argumentative, but
not aggressive, the ability to work toward shared problem solving remains alive (Guerrero
and Gross 2014).
The dominating style of managing conflict can turn out to be productive if you com-
pete to accomplish individual goals without destroying the other person. The relationship
focus is maintained even while the topic is debated. Competition can be productively used
in conflict, especially if the participants agree about the amount of aggressiveness that can
legitimately be used in their conflict. The following box summarizes the advantages, as
well as the disadvantages, of dominating.
Dominating
ADVANTAGES
Verbal domination can be appropriate and useful when one has to take quick, decisive action, such
as in an emergency. Such verbal strength can generate creative ideas when others respond well to
it or when one is in a situation in which the best performance or ideas are rewarded. It is useful if
the external goal is more important than the relationship with the other person, such as in a short-
term, nonrepeating relationship.
Dominating also informs the other of oneʼs degree of commitment to the issue and can be
used to demonstrate to the other party the importance of the issue. When everyone agrees that
dominating behavior is a sign of strength and when the behavior is treated as a natural response,
such as in games, sports, or in a court battle, the style serves good purposes. In these cases, other
styles may not bring the expected closure.
EXAMPLE:
A human services agency competes with others for grant money from United Way. A limited
amount is available, so the best proposal for solving a human services problem will be funded. The
director of the agency competes with other directors for funding. The larger good of the commu-
nity is served by the best programʼs gaining support.
(continued)
Dominating
DISADVANTAGES
Dominating responses can harm the relationship between the parties because of the focus on
external goals. Competition can be harmful if one party is unable or unwilling to deal with conflict
in a head-on manner. Conflict waged competitively can encourage one party to go underground
and use covert means to make the other pay. Domination tends to reduce all conflicts to two
options—“either you are against me or with me,” which limits oneʼs role to “winning” or “losing.”
EXAMPLE:
Greg and Marcie, both young, competitive salespeople for the same company, live together. High
sales, naturally, are rewarded by their manager. The couple keeps track of whoʼs ahead of the
other by placing a chart on the refrigerator. The weekʼs loser has to do the laundry for the week.
However, when Marcieʼs sales are low because she has been ill and has missed a lot of work, she
angrily proclaims to Greg, “Iʼm not your slave! Do your own damn laundry!” Their relationship and
her identity suffered from the “loss.”
Especially when both parties agree that a competitive style is the norm, the style can
be useful. Competitiveness can be a sign of strength or commitment. For example, two
attorneys who one-up each other during negotiation are each attempting to persuade the
other to alter his or her position. This dominating style may actually be a form of bluffing.
On the other hand, dominating or competitive tactics can damage a relationship, lock the
participants into round-robin sequences of attack on each other, and deprive the participants
of cooperative solutions to their problems. In severe cases a dominating style can become
self-encapsulating—the participants can’t give up or stop because they get too caught up in
winning at any cost. When people launch never-ending court challenges against one another
or continue to verbally abuse their ex-spouses for many decades, such approaches indicate a
frozen position of dominating. The ever-competitive combatants lose all perspective on the
original goal, and they dedicate their energies to triumphing over the other.
Threats
The most commonly used dominating tactic is the threat. We rush to use threats because
we believe they are effective (Thompson, Ting, Gonzalez, and Ryan 2011). Many parents
are too quick to say, “Do your homework or you’re grounded” or in the grocery store,
“Touch those cans again and I’ll lock you in the truck of the car!” Supervisors will say,
“My way or the highway”—a misguided attempt to build a team.
Figure 5.2 shows that a threat has to meet two criteria: The source of the threat must
control the outcome and the threat must be seen as negative by the recipient. If you (the
source) control the outcome (“If you don’t go to bed in three minutes, I won’t read you a
story”) and the sanction is seen as negative, then it is a threat. Similarly, if the professor
says, “If you don’t get your paper in on time, I will dock your grade,” it is a threat. How-
ever, if the source does not control the outcome (a friend says, “If you don’t get your paper
in on time, it will hurt your grade”), the comment is not a threat—it is a warning.
Figure 5.2 The Nature of Threats
Source Source does

controls not control
the outcome the outcome
Negative
Threat Warning
sanction
Positive
Promise Recommendation
sanction
Many parents get confused between warnings and threats. For example, “If you drink
too much, you’ll never graduate” seems like a threat, but it is not because the parent does
not control the outcome. (If, on the other hand, the parent says, “Stop partying so much or I
won’t pay for next semester” it is a threat.) Or, if you say to a friend, “If you cheat on your
boyfriend, he will leave you,” you are issuing a warning. If you say, “I wouldn’t challenge
her on that topic,” you are recommending a course of action to your friend.
Small children understand the difference between a positive and a negative sanction. If
the parent says, “If you don’t do the dishes, you’ll have to spend the evening in your room,”
and the child has a computer or TV so going to the room is not negative, the child may well
retort, “Is that a threat or a promise?” As you can see, if the source controls the outcome
and the recipient sees the outcome as positive, the threat is, instead, a promise.
A threat is credible only if (1) the source is in a position to administer the punishment,
(2) the source appears willing to invoke the punishment, and (3) the punishment is some-
thing to be avoided. Often the other party is able to administer a threat but not willing to
follow through. A co-worker who threatens to tell the boss you broke a rule may not carry
out the threat if the boss dislikes “whistle-blowers.” Similarly, in an intimate relationship,
one partner might say, “If you want to make your summer plans alone, go ahead. But if
you do, then don’t expect to find me here when you come back.” Such a threat (relational
suicide) is effective only if the person who makes the threat is willing to lose the other per-
son over this one issue. The perception that the other party is willing to carry out the threat
makes it effective. As a result, intimates often avoid testing the willingness of the other
party to invoke the threat and instead live under the control of the other person for years. In
poker, a “bluff” is when you bet a lot (but have a weak group of cards) as a way to get the
other people to “fold” and give you the winnings. The only successful bluff is one that the
other party believes is true.
Finally, threats are effective only if the sanction is something the threatened party
wants to avoid. One faculty member was offered a job at a competing university; when he
went to the department chair and threatened to leave unless his salary was raised, the chair
replied, “I hope you enjoy the climate down South.”
As you have seen, threats can be either constructive or destructive. They can be used
constructively to highlight the importance of the conflict topic to you, to get the attention
of the other party, and to clarify one’s perceptions of the power balance. On the other
hand, threats tend to elicit the same behavior from the other, starting escalatory conflict
spirals. They also block collaborative agreements and undermine trust in the relationship.
Worse, we can become enamored of them (Kellermann and Shea 1996). If two dormitory
roommates have been getting along well except for the issue of sweeping the floor, then a
threat of “If you don’t sweep more often, I’ll process a room change!” might damage the
trust in an otherwise good relationship. The recipient of the threat is likely to respond with
a feeling of “OK, then go ahead. Who needs you anyway?” Unless trust can be regained,
forging agreements will be extremely difficult. Once a threat has damaged the trust in the
relationship, it often leads to further destructive tactics. Threats are overused, used too
quickly, destroy trust, and tend to promote retaliation.
Application 5.6 Threats in Personal Relationships
Think of a time when you were threatened, or you used threats. What happened? Looking back,
do you think the threats were effective in solving a problem and keeping the relationship intact?
Were they harmful? What have you learned about your personal response to using threats or being
threatened verbally?
Which of the following was true for you when you were the recipient of a threat or when you
used a threat?
• I felt justified and right.
• I could not think of anything else to do.
• I wanted to hurt the other person.
• I wanted to get even after I was threatened.
• My feelings for/with the other person changed to fear, contempt, humiliation, rage, helpless-
ness, or vengeance.
• I managed to avoid the other person.
• I broke the relationship, finally.
• I didnʼt like myself for issuing the threat.
• I didnʼt like myself for changing my behavior when someone threatened me.
• I felt hate/hated.
• I felt regret or remorse.
Can you think of positive outcomes of giving or receiving a threat? Discuss these with your small
group.
Threats introduce a risk in a relationship. Even if a credible threat is carried out, with
the resulting win–lose negative sanction, what is gained? The immediate problem may be
temporarily resolved, but the main goals (1) to solve the problem and (2) to preserve the
relationship for work or closeness have not been met. The use of the threat automatically
damages the second goal, “preserve the relationship.”
Destructive Domination
Dominating tactics involve being verbally competitive—striving for an individual “win.”
These tactics have a win/lose orientation and reflect a belief that what one person gets,
the other loses. As a result, the party using competitive tactics will try to one-up the other
party to gain an advantage.
If someone personally criticizes you, rejects your statements, or acts in a verbally
hostile manner (with threats, jokes, or questions), you become vividly aware of the com-
petitive nature of the exchange. Confrontational remarks are at the heart of “I win–you
lose” perspectives on conflict. Just as with avoidance tactics, dominating tactics are often
used in combination. A dominating approach demands that the other give in, take respon-
sibility for the conflict, and solve it.
Illustrations of Dominating Statements
“Oh, come on”

“Youʼre exaggerating”
“If you do that once more, you are grounded”
“I am the expert here”
“Listen, when you are in the kitchen I am the boss”
“Who told you that I would care about your opinion?”
“You are just stupid”
“I am not going to stop until I win”
Most of us know that drugs and alcohol make conflict worse. We often hear stories
about someone being drunk physically or verbally aggressive. Research on this is quite
clear—there is a definite link between substance abuse and harmful competitive tactics.
Alcohol especially makes conflict episodes much more damaging (Edelgard and Cols-
man 2002; Huang, White, Kosterman, Catalano, and Hawkins 2001; MacDonald, Zanna,
and Holmes 2000). It is so common that we say, Never engage in a conflict when you or
the other has been drinking. Of course, other drugs have even more dramatic effects. The
recent surge in methamphetamine use is often correlated with violent interpersonal aggres-
sion. So, if you want your conflicts to be less damaging, avoid engaging difficult issues
when you or the other is under the influence of a substance.
The dominating style often leads the other to mirror that style. Often, the person who
feels powerless and victimized escalates the conflict to a point, then gives up, thinking,
“There’s nothing I can do to win anyway.” In effect, the participants cooperate in the esca-
lation. A very angry person was once observed trying to take over the microphone and the
floor at a convention. He shouted loudly, disrupted the proceedings, and was finally given
5 minutes to state his case. He did so, supporting with vehemence the pullout of his church
group from a large national group, which he perceived as being too progressive. He chose
the dominating style to escalate the conflict—soon he and the chairman were yelling back
and forth at each other. When he gained the microphone, however, he followed the rules,
spoke, and sat down.
Verbal Aggressiveness and Verbal Abuse

Verbal aggressiveness and verbal abuse are forms of communication violence. Rather
than just telling others what might happen to them (using a threat or warning), people
using verbal aggression attack the self-concepts of the others (Infante and Wigley 2011).
Character attacks (“You are just a rotten wife”), insults (“Well, I suppose someone with
your intelligence would see it that way”), rough teasing, ridicule, humiliation, and profan-
ity all are forms of verbal aggression. In individualistic cultures, aggressive and abusive
talk is common. It attacks the other’s character, background, abilities, physical appear-
ance, and the like. The more important your relationship with someone, the more the ver-
bal aggression hurts (Avtgis and Rancer 2010; Martin, Anderson, and Horvath 1996). In a
collectivistic culture, on the other hand, the most damaging verbal abuse is directed toward
a person’s group, clan, tribe, village, or family, such as when you say, “He’s a drunken
Irishman” (Vissing and Baily 1996), or “You people are all animals.”
Many conflict parties, those who use a dominating style, immediately begin to ver-
bally attack with abusive language. Once you focus on the other as the sole cause of the
difficulties, it is easy to slip into disparaging personal remarks. The following are examples
of verbal abuse and aggressiveness:
You’re so stupid.
You’re an imbecile.
You’re ugly.
You’re low class.
I wish you would die/get hit by a car/fall off the face of the earth.
No one else would have you.
One study examined the use of verbal aggression in college-age couples and found
that based on 5,000 American couples, men and women engage in equal amounts of
verbal aggression (Sabourin 1995) and other studies show this to be the case (Archer
2000; Ehrensaft, Moffitt, and Caspi 2006). If an occasional lapse into verbal aggression
occurred, partners seemed able to absorb it, but in distressed relationships, verbal aggres-
sion was associated with ineffective conversation skills and was much more frequent than
in satisfactory relationships. The most damaging style results from people knowing little
about how to argue (argument can be positive), who therefore resort to verbal aggressive-
ness. (See Guerrero and Gross [2014] for an overview of the issues surrounding argumen-
tativeness and verbal aggressiveness.)
Most people recognize verbal abuse. When we hear someone in public verbally abus-
ing another, we cringe. The person engaging in verbal aggression most often doesn’t per-
ceive their communication as aggressive. People who exhibit high verbal aggressiveness
claim that 46% of their verbally aggressive messages are humorous (Infante, Rancer, and
Wigley 2011; Infante, Riddle, Horvath, and Tumlin 1992). Labeling a verbally aggres-
sive comment as humor convinces no one except the aggressive speaker. Outsiders view
verbally aggressive people as less credible and as having fewer valid arguments than those
who don’t use aggressive language (Guerrero and Gross 2014; Infante, Hartley, Martin,
Higgins, Bruning, and Hur 1992). If a couple is verbally aggressive, they tend to infuriate
each other and lack the skill to undo the relationship damage (Sabourin 1995).
Verbal aggression is closely associated with physical abuse. Verbal aggression pre-
cedes and predicts physical aggression in adolescents and in marriage and other romantic
relationships (Murphy and Smith 2010; Sabourin and Stamp 1995; White and Humphrey
1994). Adding injury to insult, verbally aggressive couples usually do not perceive their
aggression as a problem (Vivian and Langhinrichsen-Rohling 1994).
Sometimes, researchers label verbally aggressive tactics as harassment. A direct ver-
bal attack on another can have serious consequences. In Sweden, for example, an estimated
100 to 300 people each year commit suicide as a result of harassment by work colleagues
(Bjorkqvist et al. 1994). One study found that in a Finnish university, women were more
often harassed than men, and women holding administrative and service jobs were harassed
more than female professors (Bjorkqvist, Osterman, and Hjelt-Back 1994). Making nega-
tive comments about appearance or clothing is considered harassment if the speaker is in
a high-power relationship with the “target” person. Additionally, if a high-power person
ridicules a low-power person’s mode of speech or makes sexually explicit suggestions or
observations, harassment is occurring. Finally, when a high-power person negatively labels
a low-power person’s personality, using words such as “brain-dead,” “loser,” “whiner,”
“bitch,” or “wimp,” the target person is being harassed. Such comments, whether labeled
“harassment” or “verbal aggression,” can occur at home, on the job, in public, or in any
type of relationship. And sometimes, these destructive verbal tactics escalate to the next
level—physical violence.
Extremely verbally abusive tactics can be characterized by the “rapist” style. In the
rapist style (this metaphor is not meant to imply only sexual behavior but all kinds of domi-
nating communicative behavior), participants “function through power, through an ability
to apply psychic and physical sanctions, through rewards and especially punishments, and
through commands and threats” (Brockriede 1972, 2). The conflict or argument is often
escalated, since participants are interested in coercion rather than agreement. The intent of
those using the rapist style is to manipulate and violate the personhood of the “victims,” or
other parties in the conflict. Verbal aggression feels like, and is, violation of the humanity
of the other, like rape.
Coercive control also characterizes extreme domination, resting on highly unequal
power. Coercive control is a form of intimate partner violence, since extreme coercion
often does escalate into physical violence. Dominators use invisible chains to control
every aspect of an intimate partner’s life, in order to gain power over the partner. Even
well-educated people can become enmeshed in coercive control. As in other forms of
domination, knowing the signs of coercion help the potential victim stop the pattern before
violence occurs.
Bullying is another extreme form of dominating. The prevalence of bullying was pre-
sented in Chapter 4. Some dominators resort to bullying so frequently that it should be
considered a subset of the style of domination.
Bullying begins with verbal aggression, a feature of the dominating style. Until
aggression results in physical violence, verbal communication creates and reinforces
aggression. As Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, and Alberts (2005) write, “Workplace bullying
does not arise out of a vacuum. Rather, it is often a consequence of unmanaged incivility,
rudeness, and injustice that contaminates the workplace. Incivility, over time, can develop
into bullying as repeated, long-term acts wear down, demoralize, stigmatize, and isolate
those targeted”(7).
In intimate partner violence, verbal aggression almost always precedes a pattern of
coercive control, and continues throughout all levels of intimate partner violence. Domi-
nating communication creates and carries intimate partner violence.
Because verbal aggression leads to bullying and intimate partner or family violence,
children and adults must be given opportunities in school, friend groups, support groups,
popular books, and on the media to recognize and confront verbal aggression. One of
the most helpful practical books on verbal aggression remains The Verbally Abusive
Relationship (Evans 2010). You can find many other good resources on verbal aggression
on the Web.
Abuse occurs digitally as well as in person. Technology presents new opportunities
for indirect, but powerful, verbal abuse (indirect only because people are not face-to-face).
Regardless of gender and age, many people experience online dating violence, relationship
abuse, and intimate partner abuse.
People can be, however, trained to stop using verbal aggression (Brinkert 2010;
Infante and Wigley 2011; Krueger 2011). Learning how to argue without attacking the
other’s self is one of the key steps in stopping verbal aggression, as well as controlling
the emotional flooding associated with verbal abuse and verbal aggression. On the other
side, if individuals can recognize the signs of possible escalation, they might be able to
seek help (Murphy and Smith 2010). The popular “That’s Not Cool” media campaign
against verbal abuse helps educate people on both sides of the verbal abuse divide. Com-
munication strategies that helped women in heterosexual relationships deal with digital
verbal abuse were grouped around avoiding, such as maintaining boundaries, and speak-
ing out on behalf of victims. Teens and young women can be taught to delete offen-
sive messages, to network with other women, and to make connections with dominant
group members (men) who will help them (Weathers and Hopson 2016). The support
of dominant group members is essential in overcoming various forms of verbal abuse
and bullying.
Compromise
Compromise is an intermediate style resulting in some gains and some losses for each
party. It is moderately assertive and cooperative. A compromising style is characterized by
beliefs such as “You can be satisfied with part of the pie” and “Give a little and get a little.”
When compromising, parties give up some important goals to gain others. Compromise is
dependent on shared power because if the other party is perceived as powerless, no com-
pelling reason to compromise exists.
Compromise is frequently confused with integrating, which requires creative solutions
and flexibility. Compromise differs, however, in that it requires trade-offs and exchanges.
Many times people avoid using compromise because something valuable has to be given
up. While North American norms, especially in public life, encourage compromising, the
style is not often the first choice in personal relationships. When power is unequal, com-
promising is usually seen as giving in or giving up. The following box summarizes the
advantages and disadvantages of compromising.
Compromising
ADVANTAGES
Compromise sometimes lets conflict parties accomplish important goals with less time expenditure
than integrating requires. It also reinforces a power balance that can be used to achieve temporary
or expedient settlements in time-pressured situations. It can be used as a backup method for deci-
sion making when other styles fail. Further, it has the advantage of external moral force; therefore,
it appears reasonable to most parties. Compromise works best when other styles have failed or are
clearly unsuitable.
EXAMPLE:
Mark and Sheila, ages 10 and 8, both want to play with the new computer game they received for
Christmas. After a noisy argument, their parents tell them to work something out that is fair. They
decide that if no one else is using the game, they can play without asking, but if they both want to
play at the same time, they have to either play a game together or take turns by hours (every other
hour). The compromise of taking turns works well as a conflict reduction device. The parents can
intervene simply by asking, “Whose turn is it?”
DISADVANTAGES
Compromise can become an easy way out—a “formula” solution not based on the demands of a
particular situation. For some people, compromise always seems to be a form of “loss” rather than
a form of “win.” It prevents creative new options because it is easy and handy to use. Flipping a
coin or “splitting the difference” can be a sophisticated form of avoidance of issues that need to
be discussed. These chance measures, such as drawing straws or picking a number, are not really
compromise. They are arbitration, with the “arbiter” being chance. True compromise requires each
side giving something in order to get an agreement; she is selling a bike and I pay more than I
want to and she gets less than she wants for the bike.
EXAMPLE:
Two friends from home decide to room together at college. Sarah wants to live in Jesse dorm with
some other friends she has met. Kate wants to live in Brantley, an all-female dorm, so she can have
more privacy. They decide that it wouldnʼt be fair for either one to get her first choice, so they com-
promise on Craig, where neither knows anyone. At midyear, they want to change roommates since
neither is happy with the choice. Sarah and Kate might have been able to come up with a better
solution if they had worked at it.
Research has not specified compromise tactics to the degrees of specificity of avoid-
ance and dominating, but some samples are:
∙ Fairness (“I gave in last time, now it is your turn”)
∙ Split the difference (“I have come up $10,000 and if you would come down by a
similar amount, we could complete the sale”)
∙ Change roles (“You did it last time, now it is my turn to lead”)
∙ Meet in the middle (“We both have to give something in order to get something—
I suggest a middle ground”)
∙ Temporary solution (“Since we don’t have time to work out all the details, how about
we agree on all the major points and set a time for working on the rest?”)
One’s view of compromise is a good litmus test of how you view conflict in general.
Think about the famous “the cup is half empty” versus “the cup is half full” aphorism that
applies to compromise. Some see compromise as “both of us lose something” and others
see it as “both of us win something.” Clearly, compromise means a middle ground between
you and the other and involves a moderate and balanced amount of concern for self and
concern for other. “Compromises” can result from good-faith efforts, and may be very
effective solutions. Compromise as a style sometimes shortchanges the conflict process,
while at other times it effectively deals with the reality that not everyone can get everything
they want. Compromise should not be viewed simply as a passive approach, since some-
times personal restraint, goodwill, and taking care of the relationship require a high degree
of concentration and energy.
Obliging
The term obliging is the same as accommodation. The dictionary defines obliging as
“willing to do a service or kindness; helpful.” You oblige or accommodate to the other’s
needs. One who practices obliging does not assert individual needs but prefers a coopera-
tive and harmonizing approach (Neff and Harter 2002). The individual sets aside his or
her concerns in favor of pleasing the other people involved (this relational goal may be the
most important goal for the accommodating person).
One may gladly yield to someone else or may do so grudgingly and bitterly. The
accompanying emotion can differ for those using obliging, from gentle pleasure at smooth-
ing ruffled feelings to angry, hostile compliance. The accommodating person may think
that he or she is serving the good of the group, family, or team by giving in, sacrificing, or
stepping aside. Sometimes this is true; other times, however, the accommodator could bet-
ter serve the needs of the larger group by staying engaged longer and using a more asser-
tive style. Sometimes people who habitually use this style play the role of the martyr, bitter
complainer, whiner, or saboteur. They may yield in a passive way or concede.
The following box summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of obliging.
Obliging
ADVANTAGES
When one finds that he or she is wrong, it can be best to accommodate the other to demonstrate
reasonableness. If an issue is important to one person and not important to the other, the latter can
give a little to gain a lot. In addition, obliging can prevent one party from harming the other—one
can minimize losses when he or she will probably lose anyway. If harmony or maintenance of the
relationship is currently the most crucial goal, obliging allows the relationship to continue without
overt conflict. Obliging to a senior or seasoned person can be a way of managing conflict by bet-
ting on the most experienced personʼs judgment.
(continued)
Obliging
EXAMPLE:
A forest service manager asks the newest staff member if he is interested in learning about land
trades with other federal agencies. The new employee knows that the manager must assign some-
one from his office to help the person in charge of land trades. The employee says, “Itʼs not some-
thing I know much about, but I wouldnʼt mind learning.” The manager, who could have assigned
the new employee anyway, thanks him for his positive attitude about new responsibilities. The new
employeeʼs goals would not have been well served by his saying, “I have no interest in getting into
that area. There is too much red tape, and it moves too slowly.”
DISADVANTAGES
Obliging can foster an undertone of competitiveness if people develop a pattern of showing each
other how nice they can be. People can one-up others by showing how eminently reasonable they
are. Obliging of this type tends to reduce creative options. Further, if partners overuse obliging,
their commitment to the relationship is never tested, since one or the other always gives in. This
pattern can result in a pseudo-solution, especially if one or both parties resent the obliging; it will
almost surely boomerang later. Obliging can further one personʼs lack of power. It may signal to
that person that the other is not invested enough in the conflict to struggle through, thus encour-
aging the low-power party to withhold energy and caring. A female student wrote the following
example of a learned pattern of avoidance and its resulting obliging.
EXAMPLE:
“In our home, conflict was avoided or denied at all costs, so I grew up without seeing conflicts
managed in a satisfactory way, and I felt that conflict was somehow ‘bad’ and would never be
resolved. This experience fit well with the rewards of being a ‘good’ girl (accommodating to oth-
ers), which combined so I was not even sensitive to wishes and desires that might lead to conflict.”
Some of the common responses of obliging or accommodating are:
“Whatever”
“It just does not matter to me—I will agree to see any movie you want”
“If you want to move out of state, Iʼm sure we can make it work long distance”
“I donʼt want to fight about this”
“Whatever you say”
“Iʼm really ok about any restaurant you pick”
“Its ok, Iʼll just work on the weekend to complete the contract”
“It is more important to me that we are OK, rather than get what I want”
Obliging is one of the most common responses to conflict between people, but it is
often the least noticed. One of the reasons is that when someone accommodates, you may
not even be aware of it. If you say, “I want to go sledding” and your brother says, “what-
ever,” obliging has occurred. If it were more overt, like dominating moves, it would be
easier to see. As a result, few communication studies look intensely at obliging—they

just don’t see it. Recently, the trait of verbal benevolence has attracted the attention of
researchers (Guerrero and Gross 2014). Those who make sincere, supportive comments
to their conflict partners may be obliging or avoiding; the addition of kind and courteous
comments helps mitigate against possible downsides of avoiding and obliging. Supportive
comments, if truthful, always help the relational and identity levels of conflict. Even pro-
cess conflict can benefit from verbal benevolence, as when someone says, “I can see why
you want to continue discussing this. You have studied this for a long time, and have a lot
to contribute. I regret that we must make a decision now, because of the time demands.”
If you automatically agree with everything your romantic partner suggests, this may
have become such a patterned response that you don’t even realize you are obliging him or
her. In a traditional marriage, if the husband comes home for dinner and says, “How about
turkey tonight?” an accommodating wife will say, “OK, I bet I have some frozen we can thaw
out, and I can make gravy.” While she was planning on beef stroganoff, she automatically
adjusts to his preferences and accommodates. In a conventional heterosexual relationship,
the man may try to make his partner happy by agreeing to do whatever she wants to do on
a date night. In less conventional relationships, these obliging patterns are less stereotyped.
Obliging may be linked to codependence. In codependent relationships, what one
person does, thinks, or feels is dependent on what someone else does, thinks, or feels.
Codependent relationships often result from a person growing up in an alcoholic or abu-
sive family, or in any family in which power differences are very obvious. The extreme
escalation of the alcoholic or abusive person causes the spouse or child to become hyper-
vigilant, to tune in with exquisite attention to the moods, needs, feelings, and predicted
behavior of a powerful other. Ultimately, the vigilant person does not know what she or he
thinks, feels, or needs, except to feel safe. One of the hardest questions a counselor asks
many women and some men is, “What are you feeling?” For the person who has lived with
a system of obliging or codependence, the answer is usually, “I don’t know.”
Obliging responses are often seen as being kind, being responsive to the partner, or as
promoting calm. Certainly it is true that not every issue needs to be addressed, and oblig-
ing can be a helpful part of anyone’s repertoire. On the other hand, obliging can reflect a
position of “I have no choice.” That power imbalance, as we have discovered, harms ongo-
ing relationships. As we become more sensitized to obliging moves, we should be able to
expand our understanding of them and their role in conflict events. If you care about the
long-term relationship, want to resolve a conflict to accomplish an important task, and can
avoid reactivity, obliging can help create goodwill.
Integrating
Collaborative processes unleash this catalytic power and mobilize joint action among the
stakeholders.
—Barbara Gray, Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems
Integrating, or collaborating, demands the most constructive, engaged engagement of

any of the conflict styles. Integrating shows a high level of concern for one’s own goals,
the goals of others, the successful solution of the problem, and the enhancement of the
relationship. Note that integrating, unlike compromise, involves not a moderate level of
concern for goals but a high level of concern for them. Integrating is an invitation to all
others so you can reach a joint resolution.
A collaborative conflict does not conclude until both parties are reasonably satisfied
and can jointly support a solution. Relationships are better, not worse, than when the con-
flict began. No one person ends up feeling run over or overpowered. The style is coopera-
tive, effective, and focused on team effort, partnership, or shared personal goals. It is also
sometimes called mutual problem solving. Integrating is the style that calls on all your best
communication skills.
Integrating involves making descriptive and disclosing statements and soliciting
reactions from the other party. You make concessions when necessary and accept respon-
sibility for your part in the conflict. Integrating does not mean taking total responsibility,
such as saying, “It’s all my fault. I shouldn’t have gotten angry.” Rather, integrating is
a struggle with others to find mutually agreeable solutions. Parties engage at an explor-
atory, problem-solving level rather than avoiding or destroying each other. Integrating is
the search for a new way.
Integrating is characterized by statements such as “When I get in conflict with some-
one, I try to work creatively with them to find new options” or “I like to assert myself,
and I also like to cooperate with others.” Integrating differs from compromise because in
compromise, the parties look for an easy intermediate position that partially satisfies them
both, whereas in integrating, the parties work creatively to find new solutions that will
maximize goals for them both.
Application 5.7
Salary, Public Regard,
and Secret Agreements
Both Lillian and Greg had been working in a hospital, Lillian as the vice president for financial
affairs and Greg as a program director for financial campaigns. Both Lillian and Greg reported
directly to the CFO, who retired. Both applied for his job, but were disappointed when someone
from another state was hired. However, both Lillian, the VP, and Greg came to like and respect
Karen, the new CFO. Lillian had the higher position, although Greg also reported to the CFO, not to
Lillian. The conflict arose when time for pay raises and performance reviews came around. Karen
told Greg that she valued him, and did not want to lose him. He had been looking for another job.
So she promoted him to “vice president for financial growth,” with a salary increase slightly above
Lillianʼs. Lillian retained her position as vice president.
What were they thinking and feeling?
Karen: I am so new here that I donʼt want to train another campaign director. Greg knows
everyone in town. When he told me he was thinking of going back to his previous
hospital as CFO, I believed him. He is a competitive, aggressive person who wants
to be at the top. I couldnʼt afford to lose him. However, I donʼt quite trust him. He
is doing a lot of public forums where he says he speaks for the hospital, without
checking with me. He is a lone ranger. And now I have alienated Lillian who, while
(continued)
Application 5.7
Salary, Public Regard,
and Secret Agreements
quiet, is really the heart and soul of this office. She has years of institutional his-
tory and everyone trusts her. She is willing to do the hard, daily work of financial
oversight. I should not have caved in to Gregʼs request without talking it over with
Lillian and my president. I can see that I put her in a one-down position with Greg.
Iʼm going to have to fix this, and quick. She could easily retire early and then weʼd
all lose.
Lillian: I am sure Karen does not know how much Greg upstages me. He never includes me
in the conversation when we are with higher-ups or big donors. He treats me like
the secretary. I didnʼt mind so much, because I know Karen values me and after all,
I was second to her. Now she has effectively raised Greg above me, although I donʼt
have to report to him. And I heard from someone I trust that he wants Karenʼs job.
I am upset, but more with Greg than Karen. Karen, I think, got bullied, and Iʼm pay-
ing the price. Itʼs not OK with me. We need to talk. I do not want to retire, but I will
never put myself in the position to report to Greg.
Greg: I am pleased that Karen sees my worth. I have brought a lot of money to the hospi-
tal, and Iʼm developing a good public presence. I donʼt respect Lillianʼs unassuming
style. She lets a lot of opportunities go by without telling donors what we need.
Sheʼs more of an accountant than a vice president. I donʼt like it that Karen goes
to her for everything. I really dislike the team meetings when nothing gets done.
Karenʼs always talking about a “team plan,” but I just want to be left alone to make
connections with donors and then let the president figure out what the priorities
are. I do fine on my own.
Of the following options, pick the one that you think has the best chance of getting all three people
to come up with a collaborative (win–win) solution. Then role-play your preferred option with all
three people.
Option 1. Karen calls a meeting with Greg and Lillian and says that she has made a mistake
in raising Greg without including Lillian. She calls for a team decision about how to
rectify the relationship, content, identity, and process issues.
Option 2. Karen talks with Greg and Lillian separately, asking Greg to change some of his
public behavior, and telling Lillian that Karen made a mistake and wants to brain-
storm how to resolve the issue.
Option 3. Karen calls a meeting with the president and Lillian and Greg and explains that
Greg is extremely valuable to the team, but no more so than Lillian, so she is
going to raise Lillianʼs salary to Gregʼs level. She asks them to collaborate more
in public.
Option 4. None of the above. Develop a plan that you think might work, including beginning
language, based on what the three parties think and feel. The object is a collabora-
tive outcome.
Research on the effect of an integrating style consistently demonstrates that when

one learns how to use it, integrating is a successful tool for conflict management (Kuhn
and Poole 2000). Integrating results in joint benefits and provides a constructive response
to the conflict. Collaborative styles in a variety of contexts result in better decisions and
greater satisfaction with partners (Gayle-Hackett 1989b; Pruitt 1981; Tutzauer and Roloff
1988; Wall and Galanes 1986). Cooperative styles allow conflict parties to find mutually
agreeable solutions, whether the conflict occurs in an intimate or work situation.
The following box summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of integrating.
Integrating
ADVANTAGES
Integrating works well to find a collaborative solution that will satisfy all parties. It generates new
ideas, shows respect for the other parties, and gains commitment to the solution from everyone.
Because integrating incorporates the feelings of the concerned parties, they both feel the solutions
are reality based. Integrating is a high-energy style that fits people in long-term, committed
relationships, whether personal or professional. Integrating actively affirms the importance of
relationship and content goals and thus builds a team or partnership approach to conflict manage-
ment. When integrating works, it prevents one from using destructive means such as violence.
It demonstrates to the parties that conflict can be productive.
EXAMPLE:
Anne, an intern at a hospital, has been given a “mission impossible” that requires that she diag-
nose and keep charts on patients under the supervision of four different doctors. Her fellow interns
work collaboratively to relieve her of some of the work. They want to demonstrate the need for
more reasonable assignments, support Anne as a friend, and avoid being assigned Anneʼs work if
she gets sick or resigns.
DISADVANTAGES
As with any style, if integrating is the only style used, one can become imprisoned in it. If investment in
the relationship or issue is low, integrating may not be worth the time and energy consumed. Further,
people who are more verbally skilled than others can use integrating in manipulative ways, which results
in a continued power discrepancy between the parties. For example, if one party uses integrating, he
or she may accuse the other of being uncaring by choosing a different style, such as avoidance. Often,
high-power persons use pseudo-integrating to maintain the power imbalance. Pseudo-integrating is
when you say all the right things, but ultimately you always gain at the otherʼs expense.
EXAMPLE:
Members of a small group in a communication class are under time pressure to finish their project,
due in 1 week. They overuse collaborative techniques such as consensus building, brainstorming,
paraphrasing, and bringing out silent members. Quickly breaking up into subgroups would better
serve the individual and relational goals of the group, but the group clings to a time-consuming
method of making decisions long after they should have adapted their style to meet the deadline.
When you integrate, you induce, or persuade, the other party to cooperate in finding
a mutually favorable resolution to the conflict. You have a “mutual versus individual” ori-
entation. Integrating involves both parties working together for solutions that not only end
the conflict but also maximize the gains for both parties. Collaborative tactics also have
been labeled “prosocial” (Roloff 2009). The goals of the individuals and the relationship
as a whole are paramount.
Some sample integrative statements are:
“I want to make sure this works for the two of us.”
“Yes, I know you would like to flip a coin, but let’s chat some more and come up
with a more creative solution.”
“Tell me again why this solution will or will not work for you.”
“I see you are upset, tell me what you need so we can move on.”
“Let’s not decide right away, but come together this afternoon and figure out a solu-
tion that will work for both of us.”
“You are an important part of our team and I’d like to hear your preferences before
we decide.”
“Let’s each lay out our concerns and then figure out how to address them.”
Some other guidelines are:
∙ Describe without interpretation. Describe what you feel, see, hear, touch, and smell
instead of your guesses about the behavior.
Example: “You’re so quiet. Ever since I said I didn’t want to go out tonight and
would rather stay home and read, you haven’t spoken to me,” not “You never
understand when I want to spend some time alone!”
∙ Focus on what is, instead of what should be.
Example: “You look angry. Are you?” not “You shouldn’t be angry just because
I want to stay home.”
∙ Describe your own experience instead of attributing things to the other person.
Example: “I’m finding myself not wanting to bring up any ideas because I’m
afraid you will ignore them,” not “You are getting more critical all the time.”
Integrative, or collaborative, tactics are very different from dominating tactics. A
dominating tactic assumes that the size of the pie is finite; therefore, one’s tactics are
designed to maximize gains for oneself and losses for the other. Integrative tactics, how-
ever, assume that the size of the pie can be increased by working with the other party. Both
can leave the conflict with something they value.
Some people experience only avoidant or dominating attitudes toward conflict and
have a difficult time visualizing an integrative approach. If each time you have conflict
you immediately say to your conflict partner, “You are wrong,” you are likely to receive a
dominating response in return. Integrating calls for a willingness to move with rather than
against the other—a willingness to explore and struggle precisely when you may not feel
like it. You do not give up your self-interest; you integrate it with the other’s self-interest
to reach agreement.
You do not have to like the other party, but you do have to communicate respect.
Integrating does require “we” language rather than “I” language. Because parties work
together for mutually desirable outcomes and protect their own as well as each other’s
interests, many times respect and caring develop as by-products of the collaborative effort.
One makes disclosing statements by saying such things as “I am having trouble tracking
this issue” or otherwise reporting one’s feelings while in the conflict. When you state your
feelings, of course you will use I language, since you know how you feel. Remember that
“I feel that you do not understand this issue” is not a feeling statement, but a judgment. You
can also solicit disclosure from the other party by saying, “What makes you upset when I
bring up the summer plans?” One can also make qualifying statements and solicit criticism
as ways to move the conflict toward integrating.
The final three categories of integrative tactics, classified as conciliatory remarks, are
(1) supportive remarks (“I can see why that is difficult—we have all been ganging up on
you”); (2) concessions (“OK, I agree I need to find new ways to deal with this problem”);
and (3) acceptance of responsibility (“Yes, I have been acting uncooperatively lately”).
All conciliatory remarks acknowledge one’s own role in the conflict and offer an “olive
branch” of hope and reconciliation to the other, paving the way to successful manage-
ment of the conflict. All of the integrative tactics move the conflict into a third dimension
where partners neither avoid nor blame but grapple with the conflict as a joint problem to
be solved.
Collaborative, or integrative, tactics are associated with successful conflict manage-
ment. Popular prescriptions for conflict management specify that one should work with the
partner to establish mutual gain and to preserve the relationship and should engage in nei-
ther avoidance nor verbal aggressiveness but try to find mutual solutions to the problems
(Fisher and Shapiro 2005).
Cautions about Styles

Because conflict styles are generating so much research, some cautions are in order. As
noted previously, one’s culture may make a difference. If the cultural studies could be
grouped according to the degree of individualism and collectivism in each culture that
would be helpful.3 One study, however, suggests, “Overall the pattern of the five conflict
modes did not vary greatly across countries or in comparison to the U.S. Norm Sample”
(Herk, Thompson, Thomas, and Kilmann 2011, p. 1).4
3
Recent work has been performed in India, Turkey, China, Oman, Australia, South Africa, Japan,
Sweden, Pakistan, Taiwan, Germany, and Serbia among others (Al-Hamdan, Shukri, and Anthony
2011; Aliakbiri & Amiri 2016; Branislava, Tomislav, Vera, and Dragana 2011; Chaudhry, Sajjad, and I.
Khan 2011; Croucher 2011; Croucher et al. 2012; Gultekin, Karapinar, Camgoz, and Ergeneli 2011;
Kantek and Gezer 2005; Milton et al. 2015; Oetzel, Garcia, and Ting-Toomey 2008; Ozkalp, Sungur,
and Ozdemir 2009; Randeree and Faramawy 2010; Ting-Toomey 2010; Wang 2010; Wang and Nasr
2011; Yuan 2010; Zhang 2015). There is also data on styles of Muslim and Hindu students in the
United States (Croucher, Hicks, Oommen, and Demais 2011).
4
Note that this was based on the Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument, while most of the other
studies used the Rahim measure. For another use, see Tjosvold, Wu, and Chen (2010); and Peng and
Tjosvold (2011).
Regardless of the cultural context, one consistent and serious limitation to the studies is
the focus on self-reports.5 Your perception of conflict style depends on whether you are rating
yourself or others are rating you. In some research and in workshops two patterns emerge:
∙ People most often see themselves as trying to solve the problem (using integrative
styles) (McCready, Roberts, Bengala, Harris, Kingsely, and Krikorian 1996).
∙ People most often see others using controlling or aggressive styles.
Most of us see ourselves as trying to solve the conflict, while the other obstructs or inter-
feres. In one workshop, participants, all who had disputes with someone else in the room,
filled out the instrument as you did earlier in this chapter on my styles and the other’s styles.
When the results were tallied, an interesting result emerged. Almost all participants said, “I
integrated and the other dominated.” Two earlier studies found that managers see themselves
as cooperative and others as competitive, demanding, or refusing (Thomas and Pondy 1977).
Self-reports carry a social desirability bias (giving answers that “look good”). One
person’s “narrative” about the conflict will probably not match that of the other person. In
conflict, we tend to see ourselves in a positive light and others in a negative light. Unfor-
tunately, most research on styles still uses self-reports, assuming they tell us what “style”
someone actually used. At a minimum, studies need to look at the following:
Person A—my styles, person B’s styles
Person B—my styles, person A’s styles
Without such joint data, any conclusions about style are problematic.
The relational context often triggers an idiosyncratic style (Doucet, Poitras, and
Chenevert 2009). Look at this list. Do you use the same style in all these relationships?
Best Friend
Mother/Father
Stepparent
Roommate
Brother or sister (or both)
President of student body
Uncle or aunt
Former romantic partner
Current romantic partner
Supervisor at work
Peers at work Classmate you like
Classmate you dislike
Classroom instructor
Childhood friend
New friend
5
Sierau and Herzberg (2011) assess both actor and partner perspectives.
Whether the rater is you or the other, many people do not use a consistent style across a
variety of relationships. One example is Eric, a college debater, who uses different styles in dif-
ferent contexts. When he is in public, he competes every chance he gets. He loves to match wits
with others, push hard for what he wants, and win arguments. He is a good-humored and driven
young man in public situations. Yet in private with his wife, he avoids conflict as though it were
a dreaded disease. When Joan brings up conflicting issues, Eric either avoids or completely
obliges her—he cannot stand conflict within an intimate relationship. Yet if Eric were to fill out
a widely used style instrument, he would give a different answer depending on the relational
context. But since a significant number of people adapt to different situations with different
styles, to give them a single label, such as a “compromiser,” is a gross oversimplification.
Research takes a “snapshot” of conflict styles, asking you what you did in a relation-
ship. For many people, the style changes across time in a given relationship. Some people
develop preferred sequences of styles; for example, one may begin a conflict by avoid-
ing, then move to dominating, then finally integrate with the other party. The accurate
assessment of one’s conflict style should measure change over time. The following chart
illustrates predominant styles with fluctuations across time. Note the variability within the
styles used by the two people, both of whom predominantly avoid conflict.
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Time 6 Time 7 Time 8 Time 9

Person A: avoiding avoiding dominating avoiding avoiding avoiding dominating avoiding avoiding
Person B: avoiding avoiding obliging avoiding avoiding avoiding obliging avoiding avoiding
Both would score as “avoiders” on a general style measure, yet over time, each one
demonstrates distinctly different patterns. In ongoing relationships, multiple episodes span
time, which a “snapshot” will not capture (Speakman and Ryals 2010).
Furthermore, one’s overall relationship history is typically not assessed. If you are in a
long-term relationship (with friends, employer, romantic partner, or family member), you have
a rich history of interaction with them influencing your style, and your and the other’s percep-
tion of it. For example, here is what Jen said. “In my marriage I never stood up for myself and
instead kept it all bottled inside to where I detested him. In the end, I completely exploded.”
Like Jen above, each of us develops a conflict style narrative based on our self-
perception. Jen sees herself as an avoider who only once dominated, but don’t you won-
der how her ex-husband’s narrative about her would diverge? He might say, “Oh, she
didn’t avoid, she was just a weak compromiser” or her “true self ” came out when she
exploded. Furthermore, Jen may be different in her next serious relationship. Similarly,
a young man who is always dominating learns from his romantic partner how to col-
laborate. Styles change with learning. One who avoids conflict learns through trial and
error to engage in the conflict earlier, thus changing her predominant mode. One can
change a preferred conflict style, especially if the old style ceases to work well.
Your style is often triggered by your perception of the other’s choices. The other’s
style influences the choices we make. For example, in Ellen’s first marriage, she developed
the pattern of occasionally throwing dishes when she was intensely angry. Her first hus-
band would flee the house. A few years later, after she had married Mick, they got into an
argument. Ellen threw a dish at Mick, who promptly went to the kitchen, picked up most
of the available dishes on the counter, smashed them on the floor, and said, firmly, “Well,
if we are going to break dishes, let’s do it!” Ellen immediately burst into tears. She wanted
a partner who would stay and work out the problem instead of leaving the scene. Neither
has thrown a dish since.
Conflict styles can provide good beginning point for analysis. Knowing your percep-
tion of self and other and the other’s perception of self and of you gives you valuable
insight into what fuels the ongoing conflict. In a close relationship, what is the best way to
find out how your friend, partner, or family member perceives you? Ask them.
Beyond Styles: Violence

Each of the five styles presented so far in this chapter has a place in conflict management,
except the subset of domination, verbal aggressiveness, and verbal abuse. As we have
seen, bullying and verbal violence always lead to negative outcomes. They violate the core
principles of good communication. They rest on a win–lose approach to conflict.
Violence occurs when conflict interactions move beyond threats, verbal abuse, and
verbal aggressiveness. A working definition of violence is “an act carried out with the
intention or perceived intention of causing physical pain or injury to another person”
(Gelles and Cornell 1990, 22). In conflict terms, violent behavior is an attempt to force
one’s will on the other—to get him or her to stop doing something or to start doing some-
thing. Clearly, it is a one-sided tactic designed to force the other to do one’s bidding. Vio-
lence substitutes physical threats for verbal persuasion. Violence occurs in the home, on
dates, and in the workplace. Specifying the details of violence, the two most researched
scales are CTS and CTS2 (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, and Sugarman 1996). The two
versions, CTS and CTS2, use items on negotiation, psychological aggression, physical
assault, sexual coercion, and injury. Some sample items from the two scales are:6
∙ Threw something at my partner that could hurt.
∙ Twisted my partner’s arm or hair.
∙ Pushed or shoved my partner.
∙ Had a broken bone from a fight with my partner.
∙ Used force like hitting, holding down, or using a weapon to make my partner have sex.
∙ Grabbed my partner.
∙ Used a knife or gun on my partner.
∙ Punched or hit my partner with something that could hurt.
∙ Choked my partner.
∙ Slammed my partner against a wall.
∙ Beat up my partner.
∙ Kicked my partner.
First responders and family violence counselors now can use excellent tools to help
them quickly assess the potential lethality of the situation in which they intervene. The
Karolinska Violence Scale (2010) provides an interview guide to help assess the potential
6
There are many items on the scales and because this section is on violence, we are focusing on the
more violent ones rather than the negotiation items.
for continuing violent behavior when a person has entered the social service or criminal
justice system. The State of Maryland has developed a Lethality Assessment Program that
first responders may use to quickly decide how dangerous an intimate partner or family
situation might be, so the people involved can be referred for further services or appre-
hended (www.mnadv.org, Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence). The field of
intimate partner violence (IPV) risk assessment is a rapidly growing area of inquiry and
application. Administration of the assessment devices and interpretation of their predictive
validity continue to be refined by researchers (Messing and Thaller 2013).
Violence remains tragically pervasive, even though the seriousness of such violence,
especially domestic violence, continues to come into question too frequently, even being
termed “ordinary decent domestic violence” by a judge in one study (Haughton et al.
2015). Ponder for a moment these rates:
∙ In the United States, almost 20% of people reported experiencing a violent episode in
the prior year of their romantic relationship (Marshall 1994) and more than 4 million
women each year are physically harmed by their husbands, boyfriends, or other intimate
partners. Similarly, in Australia more than 20% of couples have experienced violence
(Halford, Farrugia, Lizzio, and Wilson 2009).7
∙ Premarital violence is a serious social problem that affects more than 30% of the
young people in the United States who date (Buttell and Carney 2006; Sugarman and
Hotaling 1989).
∙ In unhappy marriages, 71% of the couples reported physical aggression in the prior
year (Vivian and Langhinrichsen-Rohling 1994).
∙ Men commit about 13 million violent crimes each year, with only half being simple
assaults, while women commit about 2.1 million violent crimes a year, with three-
quarters being simple assaults (Buttel and Carney 2006). Male violence carries much
more risk of danger and lethality than female violence.
In another study of dating relationships, 23% of students reported being pushed,
grabbed, or shoved by their dating partner (Deal and Wampler 1986). Studies of col-
lege students have indicated that rates of physical aggression against a current mate are
between 20% and 35%, with all forms of physical assault decreasing dramatically with
age. The most common forms of physical aggression practiced by both men and women
were pushing, shoving, and slapping (O’Leary, Barling, Arias, Rosenbaum, Malone,
and Tyree 1989). Additionally, 16.3 out of 1,000 children were reported to have been
abused and/or neglected, and in 16% of homes, some kind of violence between spouses
had occurred in the year prior to the survey (Gelles and Cornell 1990).
In summary, most researchers conclude that violence is indeed common in American
families, and current rates of violence are updated each year. Further, “These incidents
of violence are not isolated attacks nor are they just pushes and shoves. In many families,
violence is patterned and regular and often results in broken bones and sutured cuts” (192).
Violence spans all social and economic boundaries, though it is more prevalent in families
with low income, low educational achievement, and low-status employment.8
7
See the special issue of Journal of the American Medical Association, August 4, 2010.
8
The rates of violence come from various sources and differ whether from national surveys, crime
victim surveys, police calls, or FBI statistics.
Patterns of Violence
The following are some tenets of violence, based on research (adapted from Bartholomew
and Cobb 2011):
Tenet 1: Physical Aggression Is Almost Always Preceded by Verbal Aggression
Small, insignificant acts lead to verbal sparring, which then escalates into physical aggres-
sion or abuse. For instance, you burn the toast, your spouse screams at you, “Why can’t
you even do simple things right?” You shout back, “So what makes you think you are so
high and mighty?” and the cycle continues unabated with the two of you shoving each
other around the kitchen. The spiral of destruction continues until the physically stronger
one, usually the man, gets an upper hand. The important feature here is that the physical
abuse does not just arise out of nowhere—it follows hostile, dominating verbal acts (Evans
1992; Lloyd and Emery 1994). The partners engage in an “aggression ritual” that ends in
violence (Harris, Gergen, and Lannamann 1986).
Tenet 2: Intimate Violence Is Usually Reciprocal—Both Participate Aggression
and violence are reciprocal—once one partner engages in violence, the other is likely to
respond in kind. In intimate male–female relationships, the woman is more likely than the
man to engage in violent low-power tactics: The woman is 14 times more likely than the
man to throw something and 15 times more likely than the man to slap (Stets and Henderson
1991). However, 40% of all women who are murdered are killed by someone close to them.
Major differences in male and female violence show up in the seriousness and the effects
of violence. There is no question that women are seriously victimized much more often
than are men. Both participants are likely to report being both victims and perpetrators of
physical aggression; 85% of couples report that the aggression is bidirectional (Vivian and
Langhinrichsen-Rohling 1994). These statistics suggest that there is an attack–counterattack
sequence to the majority of violent episodes Once violence begins, both people tend to
participate—it is a dyadic, interactive event.
Tenet 3: Women and Children Suffer Many More Injuries Violence, regardless of the
cycle of interaction leading up to it, damages women and children more than men. Advo-
cates for battered women point to a “cohesive pattern of coercive controls that include ver-
bal abuse, threats, psychological manipulation, sexual coercion, and control of economic
resources” (Dobash and Dobash 1979). Additionally, many women learn not to confront,
and remain unskilled in effective verbal defense. Many women try to placate rather than
leave the scene. Socialization of women that teaches them to be forgiving also leads to
women staying in abusive relationships.
All you have to do is volunteer at a battered women’s shelter or read in the newspaper
about child abuse to see who loses. As Gelles says, “When men hit women and women hit
men, the real victims are almost certainly going to be the women” (1981, 128). Even when
women use weapons as a way to gain the upper hand, they are still injured more often (Felson
1996). Throughout history, women have been the victims of violence.
Tenet 4: Victims of Abuse Are in a No-Win Situation Once the cycle of abuse begins,
the victim of the abuse has few good options (Lloyd and Emery 1994). For example, it
is fruitless to try to use aggression against a stronger and more violent person. Yet, on
the other hand, it is extraordinarily difficult to leave because the perpetrator is trying to
control all the victim’s actions. The complexity of abusive relationships is evidenced by
the fact that nearly 40% of victims of dating violence continue their relationships and
that most women who seek help from a battered women’s shelter return to their spouses
(Bartholomew and Cobb 2011; Sugarman and Hotaling 1989). Many women go back to
abusive situations because with children they cannot make a living. Many women feel
guilty about the failure of the relationship and go back, believing the abuser’s promises
to change. One study documented that 70% of fathers who sought custody of their chil-
dren were successful, so many women, especially poor women, are afraid of losing their
children if they stay away (Marano 1996). Tragically, abusers escalate their control tactics
when victims try to leave. More domestic abuse victims are killed when they try to leave
than at any other time. It is difficult for women with children to flee when they are so
dependent on the very person who is violent with them.
Tenet 5: Perpetrators and Victims Have Discrepant Narratives about Violence

(Bartholomew and Cobb 2011; Moffitt et al. 1997) One of the reasons that it is so
difficult to decrease violence is that perpetrators of violent acts see their behavior as some-
thing “that could not be helped or as due to external, mitigating circumstances. Thus,
they may cast themselves as unjustly persecuted for a minor, unavoidable, or nonexistent
offense” (Baumeister, Stillwell, and Wotman 1990, 1003). One provocative study asked
the participants to recall situations where they were perpetrators of violence and then write
about the events. They also were asked to recall situations where they were victims and
reflect on those events. What emerged was that “perpetrators apparently see the incident
as a brief, uncharacteristic episode that has little or no relation to present circumstances
whereas victims apparently continue to see harmful consequences and to feel lasting griev-
ances” (1001). The discrepancies in accounts of violence extend to the underreporting
of violence. Husbands are more likely than wives to minimize and deny their violence
(Bartholomew and Cobb 2011; Browning and Dotton 1986). Furthermore, husbands
are more likely than wives to count choking, punching, and beating someone up as self-
defense rather than violence (Brygger and Edleson 1984), but what abusers often report as
“self-defense” is in reality violent retaliation.
Even though violence from women to men occurs (Ridley and Feldman 2003), it is far
less common. In any event, the accounts of the abuser and victim will be discrepant.
Explanations for Violence

Why does violence occur in personal relationships? One explanation is that violent
responses to conflict are learned—those who experience violence have experienced it
before, have witnessed it in their family of origin or in previous relationships (Yexley and
Borowsky 2002). Perpetrators of violence were often victims of violence in their childhood
and in their earlier relationships. Yet, saying that “violence is passed on” is not a totally
satisfying answer. We need to know much more about people who do not continue the
patterns. Why do some people who are exposed to violence and aggression in childhood
stop these patterns in adulthood (Lenton 1995a, 1995b)? Patricia, for example, suffered
both verbal and physical abuse at the hand of her father. He said and did terrible things
to her when she was a child, and she ran away from home at age 17. Yet, in raising her
children, she did not once verbally or physically abuse them. We need much more research
on resilient people like this who break the intergenerational transmission of aggression.
Similarly, what about people in families and romantic relationships who stop escalating
sequences of verbal aggression that might lead to violence? And, on the other hand, why
do some people who were not previously exposed to violence and aggression develop vio-
lent and aggressive behaviors?
A second explanation for violence centers on the elements of a patriarchal culture that
insists the man is always right. The more discrepant the power between the husband and
the wife, the greater the violence (Kim and Emery 2003). In “asymmetric power struc-
tures” (husband-dominant or wife-dominant marriages), there is “a much greater risk of
violence than when conflict occurs among the equalitarian couples” (Coleman and Straus
1986, 152). When the power is “asymmetric,” conflict episodes more often trigger vio-
lence. Extreme dependency leads to tolerance of violence. Research shows multiple fac-
tors leading to abuse and that patriarchal explanations, while part of the picture, are too
simplistic (Bell and Forde 1999; Buttell and Carney 2006; Greene and Bogo 2002). For
example, incidences of violence are higher in the United States than Hong Kong—seen as
a patriarchal culture as well (Kam and Bond 2008).
A third explanation for violent tactics is that violence is the result of lack of communica-
tion skills in a situation of powerlessness. Physically aggressive wives and husbands display
rigid communication patterns, automatically responding in kind to their partner rather than
with an alternative response (Rosen 1996). If you can effectively argue (without being ver-
bally aggressive), then you have a sense of power and impact. If you feel that you can have
an impact on your spouse, there is no need to resort to physical aggression, even in the heat
of conflict. Yet, there are also people who are both verbally skillful and physically violent.
Clearly, no one explanation can account for violence. For example, why does a strong
belief in pacifism correlate to fewer violent behaviors for Quaker women but not for
Quaker men (Brutz and Allen 1986)? Why do surveys indicate that men are more often the
recipients of violence than women? Is it because males are more likely to see any violence
as a violation and report it? And why do people in marriages with a lot of physical aggres-
sion often not see it as a problem (Vivian and Langhinrichsen-Rohling 1994)?
Regardless of one’s explanation of violence, it is past time for us as a culture to take a
firm stand on it. We desperately need to approach violence from a variety of platforms—in
the home; in the schools; in places of worship; and in the workplace. We need programs to
teach us how to stop violence in all contexts and give assistance to both perpetrators and
victims so the cycles of destruction can be stopped.
Interaction Dynamics
We cannot understand conflict dynamics by examining individual styles in isolation. The
interlocking interaction of two or more people determines the outcome of the conflict. No
matter how hard one person tries to resolve a conflict, the outcome will not be constructive
unless the other person is involved in working things out, too. Figure 5.3 shows two very
different outcomes of conflict even though Michael uses exactly the same tactics through-
out. In one case, the conflict escalates between the two participants. In the other, Janet’s
alternative tactics reduce the conflict. The outcome is the joint product of both choices, not
the result of some inherent personality trait of either participant.
Figure 5.3 Tactics in an Interaction Context
Conflict A Conflict B
Michael’s tactics Janet’s tactics Michael’s tactics Janet’s tactics
Topic Topic
avoidance avoidance
Personal Personal
criticism criticism
Implicit Implicit
denial denial
Rejection Personal
criticism
Supportive Supportive
remarks remarks
Hostile Accepting
joking responsibility
Supportive Supportive
remarks remarks
Hostile Descriptive
questioning statements
(At this point the conflict is escalating.) (At this point the conflict is reduced.)
One chooses his or her conflict tactics and styles based on the view of the other’s
intent and actions. Analysis must shift from the individual to the relationship level, view-
ing conflict preferences as resulting from a system of interlocking behaviors rather than
as a function of personality. Relational variables (whom you interact with, how congruent
your perceptions are with those of the other party, what intent you think the other party
has, and the mirroring of each other’s responses) explain conflict style choices better than
personality. In organizations, when a manager is perceived to use an integrating style, sub-
ordinates are less likely to use threats to resign, and more likely to use verbal engagement
for dissent. When a manager’s style is perceived to be dominating, subordinates are more
likely to threaten to resign, to go around the manager, and to repeat demands (Redmond,
Jameson, and Bender 2016).
Even though each conflict interaction is unique, two patterns of interlocking behaviors
are worthy of note. They are (1) complementary patterns and (2) symmetrical patterns.
Complementary patterns are tactics or styles that are different from one another but
mutually reinforcing. For example, if one person tries to engage and talk about the conflict
and the other avoids, each one’s moves reinforce those of the other. The engager begins
to think, “If I don’t force the issue, he will never talk to me,” while the avoider thinks, “If
she would just leave me alone, it would be all right.” The more she engages, the more he
avoids; the more he avoids, the more she engages; and they produce a “communication
spiral” with each one magnifying his or her chosen response.
Such complementary patterns occur in many contexts. In business settings, for example,
supervisors and subordinates use different styles, and in personal relationships, one person
is often conciliatory and the other coercive. In intimate relationships that are unsatisfactory,
partners may experiment with different styles, trying to find an interaction pattern that will
improve the relationship.
Two people can engage in complementary interactions that do not cause serious rela-
tionship difficulties. For example, 9-year-old Carina, when confronted by her father about
being responsible, says, “Who cares?” (with a giggle) But, if the patterns persist for years,
they can keep the two parties in recurring conflict.
Symmetrical sequences occur in conflicts when the participants’ tactics mirror one
another—both parties escalating, for example. One type of symmetrical pattern occurs
when the parties both avoid a conflict, refuse to engage in the conflict overtly, and create
a devitalized spiral. As a result, the relationship loses vitality and the partners become so
independent of each other that the relationship withers away. Gottman (1982) noted that
there is a “chaining” of identical tactics in distressed marriages. Distressed spouses might
get stuck in cycles of competitive tactics. For example, a sequence might occur as follows:
Husband: threat
Wife: counterthreat
Husband: intensified threat
Wife: intensified counterthreat
John: Don’t even think of walking away from me when I’m talking.
Anita: I’ll walk away, and I’ll walk right out of the marriage if I do. You can’t stop me.
John: Try it, and see how you get to work without a car. It’s in my name, so you don’t
have a car!
Anita: And you don’t have children. We’re history!
People match their spouses’ competitive tactics with an increase in their own. Such
escalatory spirals lead the couple into irresolvable conflicts. In organizations, what starts
as an “attack-defend” pattern evolves into symmetrical “attack-attack” patterns, with each
party trying to one-up the other (Putnam and Jones 1982b). These patterns have been char-
acterized in the following ways:
∙ attack-attack
∙ retaliatory chaining
∙ negative reciprocity
∙ cross-complaining
∙ threat-counterthreat
∙ round-robin attacks
∙ escalatory spirals
Conflict styles are best seen in the context of the relationship. Based on available
research, the following conclusions are warranted:
1. If the conflict parties both want to avoid the conflict and, as a norm, do not generally
work through conflicts, joint avoidance can be functional (Pike and Sillars 1985).
2. Once a conflict is engaged, dissatisfaction can be caused by either fight-flight or
threat-threat patterns. Either the complementary pattern or the symmetrical pattern
can be dysfunctional for the parties, especially when they get rigidly locked into
habitual tactics and styles.
3. Once engagement has occurred, the conflict is best managed by moving to collab-
orative/ integrative tactics (Pike and Sillars 1985). One useful sequence is (a) the
agenda-building phase, (b) the arguing phase, and (c) the final, integrative negotia-
tion phase (Gottman, Notarius, Gonso, and Markman 1976).
In summary, to preserve a good relationship while pursuing a goal that appears incom-
patible with that of the other person, integrative tactics work best. You may begin the
conflict by avoiding, obliging, compromising, or dominating, but at some point collab-
orative engagement is usually necessary. Competent communicators are those who use
constructive, prosocial, collaborative tactics at some stage of the conflict (Cupach 1982).
As Schuetz (1978) says, “In situations of conflict, as in other communicative events, the
competent communicator engages in cooperative interaction that permits both persons
(factions) involved to achieve their goals” (10).
Family researchers have clearly demonstrated the link between integrating and rela-
tionship satisfaction (Gottman 1994; Noller, Feeney, Bonnell, and Callan 1994). Collabor-
ative tactics involve supporting a positive, autonomous identity for the other while working
toward your own goals. Such multiple demands, although difficult to master, lead to pro-
ductive results for all parties, for in the end you are working with rather than against the
other for mutual integrative gains.
Whatever communication moves you make, the basic question is whether those
choices lead to the effective management of the conflict over time. No one set of choices at
any point will guarantee productive conflict, but integrative tactics at least set the stage for
the containment and management of the conflict if both parties move toward a problem-
solving perspective. When in doubt, collaborate.
Flexibility Creates Constructive Conflict

Being Stuck
People often stay frozen into a conflict style rather than developing style flexibility. Each
time they are in a conflict, they make the same choices. The work associate who always
avoids any conflict, smoothes over everyone’s feelings, and habitually refuses to talk about
the difficulties between her and others, is frozen in a particular style. Individual lack of
adaptation can occur in many forms. For example, a person might always avoid conflict
until a situation heats up, at which point he or she engages in violent behavior. The pattern
is self-sealing and difficult to alter. The person who competes on the job and is unable to
relax off the job is just as stuck as the person who is unable to openly admit that conflict
exists. People who are inflexible in their style selection are often unaware that their choice
of style is an important contributor to the conflict.
People often get stuck in behaviors from their “golden age.” The golden age is that
period in which you felt best about yourself and from which you possibly still draw many
positive feelings. The 45-year-old history teacher who fondly recalls participating in high
school athletics might operate from the rule that “the way to handle conflict is to get out
there and give it everything you’ve got, fight to win, and never let anything keep you from
your goal.” This rule probably worked beautifully in a football game, but it may cause real
havoc if the principal does not want to work with aggressive teachers and recommends this
teacher’s transfer to another school.
Often people are stuck in a personal style because of early family experiences and gen-
der identity (Neff and Harter 2002). Young girls may have been taught to smooth others’
feelings and not “make waves.” If you were raised with such prescriptions and bring them
to a conflict situation, you will accommodate the other and fail to assert your own desires.
In the following excerpt, Karen details some of the disadvantages of this particular lack of
flexibility:
As a child, I was forbidden to “talk back.” As a result, I stifled all my replies until I was of
sufficient age to walk out and did so. That was fifteen years ago—I have never been back . . .
Thus, my strategy has been one of avoidance of a conflict to which I can see no resolution.
Because I was raised by my father and stepmother, I scarcely knew my mother. When I was
seventeen, I went to live with her. She wanted a mother-daughter relationship to which I could
not respond. Legally bound to her, my attempts at confrontation ended in failure. Once again
I walked out—this time into marriage. After seven years of marriage and abortive attempts at
communication, I again walked out—this time with two children.
Likewise, many men are taught to compete regardless of the situation, learning that
obliging, compromise, and integrating are all signs of weakness. Although a competitive
style might be appropriate for certain business situations where everyone understands the
tacit rules, dominating as your only response in an intimate relationship may destroy it.
Gender conditioning, whatever its particular form, is just one kind of learning that helps
keep people stuck in conflict styles that may not work in certain situations.
Are You Stuck?

How can you tell if you are stuck in a conflict style? Use the following diagnostic aid to
determine if you are stuck in a style that does not work well for you:
1. Does your current conflict response feel like the only natural one? For example, if
your friends or family members suggest that you “might try talking it through” rather
than repetitively escalating conflict, do such new options seem alien and almost
impossible for you to enact? When stuck, “do what comes unnaturally!”
2. Does your conflict style remain constant across a number of conflicts that have similar
characteristics? For example, in every public conflict, do you accommodate others
regardless of the issues at hand or your relationship with the others involved?
3. Do you have a set of responses that follow a preset pattern? For instance, do you “go
for the jugular” then back off and accommodate the other because you fear you have
made a “scene”? If you follow regular cycles of behavior, whatever the particulars,
you may be stuck.
4. Do others seem to do the same thing with you? If different people engage in similar
behavior with you, you may be doing something that triggers their response. For
instance, has it been your experience that in public conflicts, others are always domi-
nating? If so, their behavior may be a reaction to a dominating posture that you take
toward public conflict. If you were more conciliatory, integrative, or obliging, others
might not feel the need to respond competitively to you.
5. Do you carry a label that is used to describe you? If you grew up as “our little
fireball,” you may not have learned how to collaborate. If you are referred to as a
“powerhouse,” a “mover and a shaker,” or “a bulldog,” your conflict style might be
overly inflexible. If you’re known as “the judge,” “the warrior,” or “the dictator,”
you probably have an overly rigid style. Labels, although they often hurt and
overgeneralize, may carry embedded grains of truth.
Application 5.8 Your Responses
Answer the above five questions, privately first, then with your small group. What did you learn?
Is there anything you want to change about your style across various contexts? Maybe itʼs time for
a change.
Individuals who can change and adapt are more likely to be effective conflict partici-
pants, accomplishing private and group goals better than people who avoid change. Hart
and Burks (1972) discuss the concept of rhetorical sensitivity, the idea that people change
their communication style based on the demands of different situations. The following five
communication characteristics describe people who are rhetorically sensitive:
1. They are comfortable altering their roles in response to the behaviors of others.
2. They avoid stylizing their communication behavior, so they are able to adapt.
3. They develop skills to deal with different audiences and are able to withstand the
pressure and ambiguity of constant adaptation.
4. They are able to monitor talk with others to make it purposive rather than expressive.
They speak not so much to “spill their guts” as to solve problems.
5. They adapt and alter behaviors in a rational and orderly way.
In other words, effective communicators adapt to others. They avoid getting “stuck” in
certain conflict styles.
If you have a repertoire of styles, it prompts you to see others in a different, more
objective light. When we see we make choices depending on circumstances, we then can
see others doing the same thing. We are far less likely to judge the behavior of others auto-
matically as having bad intent, being childish, or being improper.
Another reason for having a repertoire of conflict styles is many styles were developed
from rules for children. Although it may be appropriate to “respect your elders” when
you are 8 years old, overgeneralizing that rule to include avoiding conflict with respected
elders when you are an adult is much less appropriate. Learning to seek permission to
speak might be fine behavior in the third grade, but waiting for permission to speak in a
bargaining session, whether formal or informal, will ensure that you will never be heard.
As an adult, raising one’s voice may not be as great a sin as stifling it.
By unfreezing your style options, you can adapt to the context and the other person
and be more productive in conflicts.
Summary
Conflict participants face the basic choice of avoid- either. In reporting styles, avoidance is often under-
ing or engaging in a conflict. This choice leads to reported, the effects of interaction ignored, and we
the five individual styles of conflict management: need to be cautious about assuming that some styles
avoiding, dominating, compromising, obliging, and are “destructive” and others “constructive.” Finally,
integrating. An adapted Rahim assessment instru- group studies are not able to give you precise sug-
ment was included to measure your and other’s gestions about what to do in your own conflict
conflict styles. Then, the specific advantages and situation.
disadvantages of each style were discussed. Look- We discussed extreme forms of reacting in a
ing at your conflict styles can be a good first step in conflict—verbal aggression, bullying, and physical
learning how to manage your conflicts. violence. These are more than “styles” of conflict.
Caution is, however, in order when looking They are choices that damage others. Verbal aggres-
at styles. While it easy to assume your “style” can sion is placed as a subset of dominating. Causes for
be precisely measured, they still are “self-report” violence are discussed.
biased by wanting to look good. Measures are also We discussed the interaction dynamics in some
affected by culture, the relational context, and time detail and concluded by noting that flexibility in
of measurement (one point in time). The entire his- style choice enhances your chance for productive
tory with the other party is usually not factored in conflict.
Key Terms
conflict styles 152 promises 166 obliging 173
style preferences 152 verbal aggressiveness 169 codependence 175
avoidance 155 verbal abuse 169 integrating 175
engagement 155 abusive talk 169 collaborating 175
avoid/criticize loop 161 high verbal aggressiveness 169 violence 183
postponement 163 harassment 170 discrepancies in accounts of
assertive 164 coercive control 170 violence 186
dominating 164 bullying 170 stuck in a style 191
threat 165 unmanaged incivility 170 rhetorical sensitivity 192
warning 165 compromise 171
Review Questions
1. Define conflict styles. 15. Define compromising, listing its advantages
2. Reproduce the graph showing styles varying in and disadvantages.
concern for self and concern for other. 16. How does obliging differ from avoidance?
3. Define avoidance. 17. What are the advantages and disadvantages of
4. Give an example of the avoid/criticize loop. obliging?
5. How does avoidance function differently in 18. Clarify integrating and specify its advantages
diverse cultures? and disadvantages.
6. Give examples of avoidance moves. 19. What are some cautions we should keep in
7. What are the advantages and disadvantages of mind when discussing styles?
a dominating style? 20. Specify how styles are linked in interaction
8. Define threats and give examples of them. sequences.
9. Distinguish between threats, warnings, prom- 21. Discuss the gender differences in violent
ises, and recommendations. communication.
10. What is verbal aggressiveness? 22. Discuss differing accounts of violent behavior.
11. Give examples of abusive talk. 23. How can you tell if you are stuck in a style?
12. What is bullying and what effects does it have? 24. Describe rhetorically sensitive people.
13. Give examples of types of violence. 25. What do you gain by having a flexible set of
styles?
14. What different explanations are there for the
incidence of violence?
Chapter 6
Emotions in Conflict
Introducing Emotion
Most of us associate strong emotions with conflict. This chapter will help you prepare
ahead of time for the inevitable storms of feeling that sweep through your conflicts. Con-
flict always takes place on the emotional dimension (Jones 2000). Human beings might be
called Homo emoticus, (Shapiro 2016) rather than merely Homo sapiens. To be in conflict
means you will feel some emotional charge. Part of the reason conflict is so uncomfortable
is due to the accompanying emotion (Bodtker and Jameson 2001). Can you recall a genu-
ine conflict situation that did not involve feelings?
A modern theory of emotions rests on Darwin’s evolutionary research (Nesse &
Ellsworth 2009). When humans feel safe we are much more likely to employ constructive
conflict management approaches than when we are filled with fear. Darwin (1872/1965)
recognized from his research that evolution shaped humankind’s mental responses and
behavioral repertoire just as much as natural selection shaped physical characteristics of
organisms. Just like other animals, when we are attacked or perceive a threat to our iden-
tity or goals, we will feel some kind of strong emotion. Therefore, avoidance of extreme
fear and threat and promotion of safety and connection underlie one’s ability to engage in
constructive conflict.
Emotions can be defined as modes of functioning, shaped by natural selection, that
coordinate physiological, cognitive, motivational, behavioral, and subjective responses in
patterns that increase the ability to meet the adaptive challenges of situations that have
recurred over evolutionary time (Nesse 1990). Emotions developed in human beings so
people could meet immediate challenges. An emotion is both an experience that we feel
and who we are at that moment in time (Shapiro 2010, 467). We say, “I am afraid” or “I am
elated.” We identify so strongly with these emotional states that we cannot separate what
we “feel” from who we are, at least at that particular moment. Recall that all conflicts may
be analyzed in the light of the topic, the relational implications, the process used, and iden-
tity concerns. Emotions are most allied with identity and relationship concerns. You may
have heard someone say, “I am not a jealous person!” at the same time he feels jealous.
This sets up a situation of dissonance and turmoil—“How can I feel jealous when I am not
a jealous person?” You may have felt fury or scorn when you thought, “I will not allow him
to treat me that way.” We all experience these contradictions, experiencing emotion that
does not align with one’s identity, or feeling an emotion that does not seem to fit in one’s
relationship. These incongruities contribute to the anxiety of conflict.
Other languages express the role of emotion and feeling differently. In both French
and Spanish, the linguistic construction is “I have anger” or “I have sadness.” This con-
struction avoids overidentification with the feeling being described.
States of emotional arousal are labeled as different feelings, depending on what one
believes to be true. This means that feelings are connected to our appraisal of what is real
and true in a situation (Lazarus 1991). Conflicts arise about feelings because the person
experiencing the feeling believes the feeling is true. It is, for that person. But someone else
may experience an entirely different feeling, equally true. For instance, a student may be
upset and angry with her professor, who will not change a paper deadline even slightly,
while the student has very good, legitimate reasons to ask for an extension. She may feel
“defeated,” “enraged,” “mistrusted,” or “insignificant,” depending on what she believes
about herself, her professor, and their relationship. Feelings are facts; we feel what we feel.
Interpretations are subject to change based on conversation and new information. A basic
approach of conflict transformation depends on changing interpretations. We transform
our feelings when we derive new information, practice empathy, hold ourselves open for
a third story (not mine or yours, but ours, or one an outsider gives us), and abandon bad
habits that keep us from learning (defensiveness, blame, criticism, not listening, and con-
tradicting the other).
Wise use of emotions facilitates the transformation of conflicts, as long as you listen
to what emotions tell you. In the same way that hunger alerts you to eat, emotions can alert
you to unmet personal needs (Shapiro 2016). Paying attention to feelings, your own and
those of others, creates the ability to change your behavior, and to experience empathy.
Transformation of conflicts depends on empathy.
Feelings rise from a generalized state of arousal we call emotion. Specific feelings
come and go, but the emotional dimension of life is a constant (Shapiro 2011). Emotion
sets actions “into motion,” leading to your own unique subjective experience. Your subjec-
tive experience makes reflecting others’ feelings so important, and so challenging. You
may say, with all the best intentions, “So, you are feeling dismissed and disrespected by
Walt’s assignment of project teams.” Then your team member says, “No, not exactly. I feel
invisible and unimportant.” Her subjective experience is a little different from what you
imagined. Mirroring exactly what another person feels and how she or he experiences the
moment subjectively is a key step in conflict resolution. Conflicts remain unresolved when
the other person feels misunderstood. Simply parroting back feelings, with good-enough
active listening skills, does not transform a conflict. Experiencing, for a while, what the
other person actually feels helps to break down sides in conflict. This kind of listening to
feelings, your own and others, requires concentration, vulnerability, and openness.
Emotions are like moving water. Water that is dammed up with no inlet or outlet
becomes stagnant, dries up, becomes toxic, or freezes. Like water, emotions were designed
by evolution to move through the body. We feel them, they change, they transform. Con-
structive conflict resolution depends upon our ability to work with and transform emotion,
not close off or repress, normal human emotion. Approaches to emotions that are current,
and informed by neuroscience, explain that emotions are both hard-wired (nature) and mal-
leable (nurture), and are adaptive to social and cultural influences (Lindner 2014).
Feelings function as facts; they aren’t right or wrong, they simply exist. What you
do with those feelings is a key element in managing conflict. You cannot maintain per-
fect equanimity and “not feel” when you are in conflict, and neither can the other. You
may have experienced how futile it is to tell someone, “Don’t be angry! I didn’t intend
to hurt you.” Worse yet may be the comment, “You should not feel that way.” Feelings
are facts.
You Can’t Ignore Emotions

You may want to ignore emotions, but they will not ignore you (Fisher and Shapiro 2005).
Emotion affects your body, causing you to perspire, experience rapid heart rate, blush,
laugh, tense up, or feel nervous. Your emotions are a felt, physiological experience in the
body (Hein and Singer 2008).
Emotions affect your thinking. You may criticize yourself or others, feel overtaken
by negative thoughts, temporarily be unable to think clearly, or not even hear what others
are saying. Thinking and interpretation are based on our appraisal of what is happening
(Lazarus 1991). Based on neuroscience research, we are learning that “humans (and ani-
mals in general) use emotion to navigate the world by filtering for safety and danger.” We
survive and thrive based on how intelligently we navigate the world. The mind takes care
of the body-in-the-world (Early and Early 2011, 11).
Emotions affect your behavior. Almost every emotion motivates you to act, to move
in some way. Sometimes you can stop yourself from acting in ways you will regret, but
sometimes you cannot (Fisher and Shapiro 2005, 11). Emotions are both intrapersonal and
interpersonal phenomena. We feel them inside ourselves and we express them as nonverbal
and verbal communication (Jameson, Bodtker, Porch, and Jordan 2009). Specific emotions
lead people to particular tendencies to act or behave in certain ways (Bell and Song 2005;
Frijda, Manstead, and Bem 2000; Guerrero and LaValley 2006).
Application 6.1 The Matter of Lights
Here is one example of the way emotions affect bodily experience, thinking, and behavior. Carrie and
Jim live together. Jim feels strongly about the environment and wants to change most of the lights in
their apartment to LEDs or compact florescent bulbs. He follows current information about the differ-
ence in energy use between incandescent and compact florescent bulbs or LEDs. He thinks he and
Carrie should do their part to help the environment in this way. Carrie prefers the warm ambience of
incandescent bulbs. She has been attempting to turn off lights frequently when they aren’t in use, and
is willing to turn the thermostat down in the winter to conserve energy. Carrie comes home one day
to find her favorite reading lamps converted to CFLs. She feels, literally, hot and bothered. Carrie then
confronts Jim angrily, telling him that he had no right to change out the lamps she uses most without
talking to her. Jim replies that he knew she would never agree so he just went ahead, hoping she
would see that it was the right thing to do. What might happen next on the emotional level?
What might Jim sense in his body, think about the situation, and how might he express all
this? What about Carrie? With your small group, answer the questions for Jim and Carrie, then dis-
cuss your responses. What opportunities for conflict and danger exist? What opportunities do you
see for a constructive conversation?
We will start with the physiological level of their emotional response: Both might experience a
tightening in their stomach, heightened blood pressure, and a felt sense of urgency. Both will feel
aroused. They certainly feel “stirred up.” The exact nature of their feelings depends on their personal
history, relationship history, interpretations, appraisal of what this means separately and for the rela-
tionship, and their sense of connection with each other. What specific feeling labels might they put to
their “stirred up” state? Now continue your discussion with your small group. Now describe what
Carrie and Jim’s attributions (thinking) might be, and how they might behave and communicate.
Throughout this book we have emphasized that conflict brings both danger and oppor-
tunity for creative adaptation and change. The same is true of emotional states—your
skill at making informed choices while feeling strong emotions can bring either danger or
opportunity. Humans feel as well as think. Scientists used to imagine “left brain” solutions
as coming from a rational place, and “right brain” solutions coming from an emotional
place. But our sense of self is not compartmentalized into a pocket in the brain. The brain,
like the whole person, is an inextricably entwined system (Coy 2005). No matter how
much we might argue differently, no purely “rational/logical” or “emotional” reactions
exist in complicated human beings.1
Negative beliefs about emotions might include the following. Which resonates with you?
Misconceptions of Emotion in Conflict

∙ Emotions are either real or unreal.
∙ Emotions can’t be controlled and will escalate if expressed or released.
∙ One should ignore emotions to resolve conflict well.
∙ Emotions hinder good decision making.
∙ Emotions are for the powerless (women, children, and marginalized people).
∙ Emotions are not to be expressed at work.
∙ Mature, well-developed people should be beyond emotions.
∙ I can express emotions if I can justify my feelings logically.
∙ Emotions should be saved for “later.”
∙ People will avoid me if I express emotions (except “nice” feelings).
∙ Other people should not burden me with their emotions.
∙ If other people express emotions, I have a responsibility to do something about them.
∙ If I express anger, it means I don’t love or respect the object of my anger. If others express
anger it means they don’t respect me. (Adapted from Cloke and Goldsmith 2000.)
Application 6. 2 Discussion on Emotions
With your small group, discuss the following questions, which explore what you learned about
emotion as a child, and what you have learned since you became an adult.
1. How did your parents/stepparents express emotion? What did they teach you, implicitly and
explicitly, about the place of emotion in difficult situations? Give specific examples.
2. Were you punished or rewarded for displaying certain emotions?
3. Who serves as a constructive model for you in dealing with emotions in conflict situations?
4. What would you like to learn or change about how to use emotions in difficult situations?
1
In the 5th century BCE, Aristotle compartmentalized rhetorical arguments as logos (logic) or pathos
(emotions), as did other writers throughout the centuries.
How Does Emotion Function in Conflict?

1. Conflict depends upon enough emotional arousal to “get the job done.” Without
enough energetic emotion moving us to engage in interaction, avoidance seems like
an easy alternative. When you are unhappy, distressed, excited, or angry, you may
exert enough energy to resolve a conflict. When we want to close the uncomfortable
gap with an intimate with whom we feel distant, we are moved by love and attach-
ment. In this book, we highlight the importance of solving problems while maintain-
ing relationships. The process of conflict transformation takes energy—it is not a
passive, placid process. The emotional charge enables the confrontation to take place
(DiPaola, Roloff, and Peters 2010).
2. Emotional events trigger familiar patterns of responses. We realize we are in con-
flict when we begin to sense something uncomfortable. We become agitated on the
bodily level; this bodily response takes on a label as a certain emotion or feeling. For
instance, Patricia, a junior, has just become engaged. She realizes that she is feeling
distress and discomfort around her fiancé’s family. Josh’s family is large, gregari-
ous, and warm. They often invite Josh and Patricia to join family events. Yet recently
Patricia has noticed that she feels resentful and hurt, and is making up excuses to
keep from seeing them. In a conflict with Josh, Patricia realized that she feels left
out or “blotted out” by the large, enthusiastic family. Her feelings alerted her to a
problem. She had felt unseen in her family of origin. We may desperately want to
avoid an apology to a partner when we have betrayed them. We can think of many
reasons why the betrayal occurred, we aren’t over being angry at the way our betrayal
was discovered, but at the same time we feel afraid of losing the relationship. Fear
interacts with resentment and shame, mediated by love, to move us to a specific
action—in this case, apology. If we were only afraid, we would avoid. If we were
only resentful, we might escalate. Emotions interact in layered ways. Conflicts are
difficult and complex because feelings and thoughts are often mixed.
3. Intensity of emotion varies through the conflict process. You may feel very strongly
at the beginning of a conflict, then less intensely as resolution or processing contin-
ues. For instance, you may begin by feeling fury, move to irritation, and then realize
you are feeling relief. Try to avoid making a prediction based on an early emotion,
such as describing someone as “an angry person who can’t be reasoned with.” In one
study, people who initiated a confrontation experienced more intensity and disruption
in their lives than did the “target” of the confrontation. This may be because the one
who initiates experiences a buildup of emotion. The emotional charge enables the
confrontation to take place (DiPaola et al. 2010).
4. Individual personalities are built upon the blocks of emotion-behavior patterns. For
instance, consistently high levels of joy or positive emotions often lead to positive
social relationships and ease with people (Abe and Izard 1999). We bring our personal-
ity structures into conflict resolution activities. People differ, for example, in how long
they can tolerate anger, or uncertainty, or hostility from others before they are moti-
vated to do something about the unhappy situation. Personalities are constructed upon
many learning situations. We inherit certain traits such as extraversion and introversion,
but our unique personalities result from many different experiences. Some people learn
to move toward people in ambiguous situations. They grew up in a trusting environ-

ment that rewarded an outgoing nature; they may be seen as “gregarious” in adulthood.
We can change aspects of our personalities by focusing on what works and does not
work. For instance, we can learn to express more warmth and compassion, to wait lon-
ger while experiencing discomfort, and to think instead of simply reacting.
5. We experience emotion as good or bad, positive or negative (Sanford 2007), pleas-
ant or unpleasant, and helpful or destructive. We humans evaluate our emotions; we
don’t experience emotions objectively from a distance. Not many people enjoy fury,
resentment, anger, or fear; most prefer the positive emotions such as joy, elation,
love/bonding, or pleasure. Since we experience specific feelings, rising from emo-
tional arousal, as positive, negative, or neutral, we learn to push away negative ones
and hold on to positive ones. We will explore the role of both positive and negative
emotions in greater detail later.
6. We become emotional because something is at stake for us (see Chapter 3; Fisher and
Shapiro 2005). Often one person in a couple will say, “I can’t discuss this while you
are so emotional.” Yet when important identity and relationship issues are at stake,
emotion is simply part of the picture. We can regulate our expression of emotion, but
one should never require oneself or others “not to feel.” You could adopt a great new
habit—never again say and mean, “You shouldn’t feel that way!”
7. Maturity mediates strong emotion. Older adults may feel that less is at stake in con-
flict, since they report fewer conflicts than do young adults (Almeida 2005; Almeida
and Horn 2004) and when they do have conflict, they report lower overall distress
(Charles and Carstensen 2008). Older adults even reported fewer negative emotions
in conflicts than did middle-aged adults (Carstensen, Gottman, and Levenson 2004).
It may be that maturity for most people increases their options to place conflicts into
perspective. With maturity we define ourselves less by the outcome of each conflict
because we simply have more of a sense of who we are.
8. Relationships are defined by the kind of emotion expressed. Two acquaintances are
working on a project in class. One person feels upset because the quality of work
done by the other is disappointing and the due date is coming up soon. When she
expresses disappointment, the project partner says, “If you don’t like it, do it your-
self. I am overwhelmed by work.” The relationship suggests that even moderate emo-
tion (disappointment) cannot be safely expressed. These two will not remain friends
after the project is turned in—and they may not even be speaking at that point!
The most intense conflicts, if overcome, leave behind a sense of security and calm that is not easily
disturbed. It is just these intense conflicts, and their conflagration, which are needed to produce
valuable and lasting results.
—C. G. Jung
A Model of Emotions
How many emotions exist, and what are these emotions? Researchers compile differ-
ent lists of basic emotions. All include fear and anger, and most include joy and sorrow
Figure 6.1 A Circumplex Model of Affect

ACTIVATION
tense alert
nervous excited
stressed elated
upset happy
UNPLEASANT PLEASANT
contented
sad
serene
depressed
relaxed
bored calm
DEACTIVATION
(Nesse and Ellsworth 2009). One of the leading researchers on emotion suggests that
no general theory of emotions needs to be adopted because emotions are complicated,
nuanced, layered, and change with fluidity during any encounter (Nesse 2014). One way
to organize emotions is the circumplex model of affect (Figure 6.1).2
You will notice that emotions are classified as Activated or Deactivated and Unpleas-
ant or Pleasant.3 Look at the northeast quadrant of the model. In this quadrant, emotions
are activated and pleasant (alert, excited, elated, and happy). Study the other quadrants,
then answer the questions in Application 6.3.
Application 6.3 Mapping Emotions
Think of a recent conflict. Describe to your small group, in just 3 minutes, the feelings you and others
expressed in the conflict. Include verbal and nonverbal expressions. The group takes notes on what
you report. Draw a circle for each party, placing the feelings in the correct quadrant. After each of
you finishes, discuss what you notice about the emotions expressed. Might a process conflict show
up in this discussion; that is, do the parties prefer to express emotion differently? Remember that
sometimes conflict intensifies because parties disagree (implicitly) on how to express the conflict.
In conflict, a tension of opposites is presented—do we open up or close down? Do we

soften or harden? (Baxter 2011; Sanford 2007; Welwood 1990) Do we avoid or engage;
tighten up and turn away or relax and turn toward? (Cloke and Goldsmith 2000) For the
2
See Nesse and Ellsworth (2009) for a complete literature review of the different ways theories of
emotions have developed.
3
Nesse and Ellsworth (2009), adapted from Posner, Russell, and Peterson (2005).
purposes of conflict transformation, we are concerned about whether the feelings open,
broaden, and help people come toward each other for problem solving, or whether they shut
us down, close us off, and lead us to withdraw from the person or the problem that arouses
our feelings. Do we respond to emotions with communication that leads to healing and
movement, or constriction of self, other, and relationship? Hard emotions lead to blame,
criticism, threats—tearing the fragile fabric of the web of connection—whereas softer emo-
tions lead to openings for transformation. The circumplex model provides a map so you can
locate yourself in relationship to your usual style of emotional experience in conflict.
Core Concerns: Organizing Positive Emotions

Researchers at the Harvard Negotiation Project have pioneered the inclusion of emotion in
conflict resolution, especially negotiation. (See the website to gain a comprehensive over-
view of their research over the past three decades.) The concept of Core Concerns helps
organize their many good ideas about creative negotiating and conflict resolution (Fisher
and Shapiro 2005; Shapiro 2011; Shapiro 2016). The Core Concerns Framework provides
a system for dealing with the emotional dimension of conflict resolution. In the middle of a
conflict, we find it difficult to remember all our communication skills, the best principles,
how to use positive emotions, avoid negative emotional triggers, and how to avoid ineffective
practices. Students of conflict can use a simple-to-remember set of core concerns that will
serve as a lens through which to view conflict and a lever to stimulate integrative approaches.
Transformation of conflicts depends on taking into account these core concerns. These con-
cerns, similar to the interests and goals explored in Chapter 3, are:
∙ Appreciation (recognition of value). No one wants to search for an integrative solu-
tion when being demeaned and dismissed.
∙ Autonomy (freedom to feel, think, take action, or decide). When an intimate says to
you, through clenched teeth, “We are not talking about this. Now change the subject,”
your response might be, “You do not dictate to me what we will talk about. Who do
you think you are?” Coercion guarantees lack of cooperation.
∙ Affiliation (emotional connection to others). Affiliation has to do with your emo-
tional connection with a person or group. Stable connections generate positive emo-
tions. Rejection, the flip side of affiliation, creates acute pain in the part of the brain
that processes physical pain. When people are rejected, they stop cooperating, even if
their best interests would be served by cooperating.
∙ Status (standing compared to others). Status also designates the relational concerns
of a conflict—who we are to each other. Everyone wants enough status to feel
empowered, or else, why engage in conflict?
∙ Role (effectiveness and meaningfulness of job label, designation of the person, and
recognition) (Adapted from Shapiro 2016.)
These motives appear to be hardwired into the motivational needs of people. They
are moderated by different cultures and different neurobiology and personal background.
If you memorize them and practice using the principles, you will lay the foundation for
your own “best practices in conflict resolution” approach. Conflict choices that take the
core concerns into account result in more positive and productive emotions, which lead to
integrative conflict resolution.
Finding Feelings
People sometimes find it difficult to talk about feelings, so let’s explore feeling words in
more detail. Figure 6.2 provides an exhaustive list of feeling words that are commonly used
when one’s needs are not satisfied. Choose words that might be clustered with anger, fear/
anxiety, sadness, shame, or disgust to describe how Darlene and her father (presented in
the case below) might be feeling. In the next section, we will discuss the function of posi-
tive and negative emotions. For now, expand your feeling-words repertoire by studying the
words that describe what the two parties might be feeling.
Case 6.1 How to Help a Difficult Father
Darlene’s father lives across the country from her. Darlene’s two brothers, Hal and Mark, live in neigh-
boring towns from their dad, a popular doctor in his community. Darlene’s dad, commonly called
“Doc,” has been diagnosed with colon cancer. Darlene is a social work student, with excellent com-
munication skills. After several conversations with her brothers, Darlene talks on the phone with Doc.
Darlene: Dad, I am so sorry your cancer has come back in this form. I want you to know
that I want to help. I can talk with my professors and get some time away from my
classes. This is really important and you are going to need some help. (Darlene’s
parents have been divorced a long time.)
Doc: Oh, Hal (one of his sons) is going to take me to the surgeon’s consultation, and I
imagine he’ll help out.
Darlene: But if you go through chemo, you are going to need some help at home, especially
at first. I can come for that first week or more.
Doc: Well, nobody thought my prostate cancer (5 years ago) was a big deal, so I don’t
know what everyone is getting so upset about now.
Darlene: Dad, we all cared about your cancer, and we care now. Will you stay in touch with
me and let me know what your plans are? I will be glad to help coordinate home
health care, and help you get set up with your treatment plans.
Doc: Oh, I think I’ll be all right. You have your school.
Darlene: Dad, you’re telling me that last time you felt that we didn’t care, and I want you to
know that’s not the way I feel. I would like to be involved.
Doc: Don’t worry about me. I’ll be fine.
What do you think Darlene is feeling? Go through the list of feeling words from the “when your
needs are not being met” and circle the relevant words, then locate them on the circumplex model.
What is Doc feeling? Go through the list of feeling words, circle the relevant words, then
locate them on the circumplex model.
Given the different locations of her Dad’s feelings as compared to Darlene’s on the circumplex
model, what might Darlene change about her approach to her father?
As you discuss this case, assume that Darlene is the person most likely to initiate a
different set of communication interventions. You might also notice that the father and
daughter are indeed engaging in conflict, although their family affection stays intact.
Figure 6.2 Feelings Inventory

There are two parts to this list: feelings we may have when our needs are being met and
feelings we may have when our needs are not being met.
Feelings when your needs are satisfied
AFFECTIONATE encouraged GRATEFUL PEACEFUL
compassionate optimistic appreciative calm
friendly moved clear headed
CONFIDENT thankful comfortable
loving
empowered touched centered
open hearted
open INSPIRED content
sympathetic
proud amazed equanimous
tender fulfilled
safe awed
warm secure mellow
wonder
quiet
ENGAGED EXCITED JOYFUL relaxed
absorbed amazed amused relieved
alert delighted satisfied
animated
curious glad serene
ardent
happy still
engrossed aroused
jubilant
enchanted astonished tranquil
pleased
entranced dazzled trusting
tickled
fascinated eager REFRESHED
EXHILARATED
interested energetic enlivened
blissful
intrigued enthusiastic rejuvenated
ecstatic
involved giddy renewed
elated
spellbound invigorated rested
enthralled
lively restored
stimulated exuberant
passionate radiant revived
HOPEFUL surprised rapturous
expectant vibrant thrilled
Feelings when your needs are not satisfied

AFRAID petrified ANNOYED impatient
apprehensive scared aggravated irritated
dread suspicious dismayed irked
foreboding terrified disgruntled ANGRY
frightened wary displeased enraged
mistrustful worried exasperated furious
panicked
frustrated incensed
(continued)
indignant indifferent burnt out unhappy

irate numb depleted wretched
livid removed exhausted
TENSE
outraged uninterested lethargic anxious
resentful withdrawn listless cranky
AVERSION sleepy distressed
DISQUIET
animosity tired distraught
agitated
appalled alarmed weary edgy
contempt discombobulated worn out fidgety
disgusted disconcerted frazzled
PAIN
dislike disturbed irritable
agony
hate perturbed jittery
anguished
horrified rattled nervous
bereaved
hostile restless overwhelmed
devastated
repulsed shocked restless
grief
CONFUSED startled stressed out
heartbroken
ambivalent surprised VULNERABLE
hurt
baffled troubled fragile
lonely
bewildered turbulent guarded
miserable
dazed turmoil helpless
regretful
hesitant uncomfortable insecure
remorseful
lost uneasy leery
mystified unnerved SAD
reserved
perplexed unsettled depressed sensitive
puzzled upset dejected shaky
torn despair
EMBARRASSED YEARNING
DISCONNECTED despondent
ashamed envious
alienated disappointed
chagrined jealous
aloof discouraged
flustered longing
apathetic disheartened
guilty nostalgic
bored forlorn
mortified pining
cold gloomy
self-conscious wistful4
detached heavy hearted
distant FATIGUE hopeless
distracted beat melancholy
4
Source: 2005 by Center for Nonviolent Communication | Website: www.cnvc.org | Email: cnvc@cnvc.
org | Phone: +1.505.244.4041
Functions of Negative Emotions

Emotions fit, although not “neatly,” into two subjective categories. In addition to recogniz-
ing and categorizing emotions according to the circumplex model and the feeling words
organized by the Nonviolent Communication Center, parties in conflict use a more infor-
mal and personal way to categorize emotions. People commonly refer to (1) negative emo-
tions and (2) positive emotions. As discussed previously, all emotions serve some adaptive
function. Nevertheless, people typically refer to emotions as negative or positive. People
who can distinguish among discrete emotions are better able to regulate negative emotions
than those who make fewer distinctions and remain less knowledgeable (Rivers, Brackett,
Katulak, and Salovey 2006). The good news about research on positive emotions in conflict
resolution is that positive emotions are finally receiving more attention. However, since
anger and fear remain the emotions most people think of when they imagine or experience
conflict, those troublesome and common emotions are presented first.
Anger
Anger is a strong feeling of displeasure, defined as a reaction to a perceived threat to per-
son, belongings, or identity that can range in intensity from mild irritation to frustration
and rage. Angry emotion threatens most people; few healthy people enjoy feeling angry or
having others direct anger at them. Anger is manifested verbally by yelling, using command
language, using sarcasm, and employing clipped and short tones. Anger shows nonverbally
with closed off body language, glaring, frowning, and slamming objects. Anger differs from
aggression in that aggression is an attack, whereas “anger is the feeling connected to a
perceived unfairness or injustice” (Young-Eisendrath 1997, 26). In this sense, anger helps
people set boundaries when they need to be set, and to right wrongs. When we believe an
action is unjust or wrong, our usual response is anger (Mikula, Scherer, and Athenstaedt
1998). People who have an unrealistically high sense of self-esteem ride the horse of angry
aggression more than people who are also motivated by the desire to solve problems, not
seek vengeance, and avoid negative consequences (Baumeister, Smart, and Boden 1996).
Anger can be a wake-up call, a motivator, and an energizer—a source of empowerment
(usually) for the person who feels it (Planalp 1999). Anger can mobilize and sustain energy at
very high levels. Anger is sensed in our bodies by the awareness of heightened blood pressure,
flushed face, sweating, muscle tightness, fast breathing, and a loud or high voice. When anger
is expressed directly, the person to whom it is directed receives a warning—change or face the
consequences (Planalp 1999). Self-responsibility calls for understanding our anger well enough
so we don’t justify ineffective and harmful behavior “because she made me mad.” We can use
anger to act, while we question which actions will be most helpful, effective, and will avoid
backfiring into a spiral of hostility and revenge. In certain bureaucratic, high-pressure situations
such as in the courtroom (judges) and Transportation Security Organization employees, anger,
intimidation, and sarcasm were found to help put role distance between employees and others
and to build cohesion with colleagues. The authors of a study on these two organizations point
out that anger expression must be subtle for employees to be seen as professional (Scarduzio
and Redden 2015). Even in high-stress environment, we would hardly respect a judge or TSO
official who began screaming at a defendant.
Anger was termed “the moral emotion” by the ancients because it is based on a
fast, reflective judgment that we have been wronged or threatened. We feel anger when
our safety or our core values are threatened. Anger is “rooted in reason; it is equally
of the heart and the head” (Young-Eisendrath 1994, 154). When an offense is real and
important, the desire for revenge makes sense. However, in the flush of fresh anger, we
may exaggerate an offense, plan revenge, and then charge off into unproductive conflict
(Planalp 1999). Thinking about revenge can make people feel better as they imagine
vengeful acts, but remorse sets in when people commit acts that may come back to shame
or sanction them (Yoshimura 2007).
Expressing anger in an unrestrained way creates more anger. Venting (unrestrained
expression of anger) does not discharge the emotion or reduce the feelings (Tavris 1989).
In the 1960s and 1970s the idea that “anger is cathartic” gained prominence; that dis-
charging anger would make anger lessen. This idea was especially helpful for people,
often women, who had learned to repress their anger, and above all, to be “nice.” Repres-
sion of anger leads to somatic concerns and an inauthentic way of living. Many people
in the post–World War II era learned to conform, to repress their anger and other emo-
tions, and to just “get on with it.” Women, especially, learned that their anger was seen
as unfeminine. The second women’s movement of the 1970s and beyond helped change
this harmful belief. Researchers now know that talking anger through in a way that does
not escalate can be helpful; escalating verbal or physical anger usually escalates the
anger emotion. Repression makes people sick and unhappy. Anger can be worked with in
conversation.
The following suggestions will help you deal with your own anger constructively:
∙ Use your anger to restore your sense of justice and control over an intolerable situ-
ation (Cahn and Abigail 2007). Avoid creating harm. You can address a situation
without making it worse or causing emotional injury.
∙ Seek information rather than immediately acting on anger. Deliberation in groups
improves when people have more information, which mediates anger. The more
information you have about facts, others’ perspectives and feelings, and background,
the less likely you will be to act in a destructive manner, based on anger.
∙ Direct your anger at the right person (adapted from Cahn and Abigail 2007). Avoid
venting to “the world in general when you actually need to speak to a specific per-
son.” Notice how insincere your response is when someone says, “Oh, I’m not mad at
you—you’re just the only one who will listen.” Venting is not constructive, with the
possible exception of a trusted intimate who will not take your anger personally. Be
careful!
∙ Reflect, calm down, and think before you express your anger. Yes, you can “think
while feeling.” Going with angry words before you have thought them through usu-
ally makes everything worse.
∙ Use all your best communication skills, such as “I” statements, reflections, rephras-
ing, open-ended questions, soft start-ups, and showing respect for the other while
stating your own feelings and needs clearly.
∙ Be courageous. Rather than use indirect communication (sarcasm, snide comments,
passive aggression, avoidance, and hiding behind e-mail or other electronic commu-
nication), pick up the phone, find the person, speak directly, and look him or her in
the face.
∙ Develop a keen awareness of how people react to you nonverbally. Take seriously
any criticism that you look or sound enraged, threatening, hostile, or demeaning.
The voice of intelligence is drowned out by the roar of fear. It is ignored by the voice of desire. It is
contradicted by the voice of shame. It is biased by hate and extinguished by anger. Most of all, it is
silenced by ignorance.
—Karl Menninger
Fear and Anxiety

Fear and anxiety figure heavily in conflict resolution activities. These emotions can be
found on the left quadrant of the circumplex model. Most experience fear and anxiety as
actively unpleasant. During a conflict, to reap any advantage of fear, such as enhanced
alertness, we need to cool down and help our opponents to calm their fears as well
(Lindner 2014, 291). Fear leads people, first, to avoid. Fear does not have to involve
“flight” in the commonplace “fight” or “flight” choice. Just as anger does not necessar-
ily lead to fighting, fear does not necessarily lead to fleeing. Fear sometimes disables
the physical and emotional systems as we “freeze,” not able to mobilize ourselves to do
anything for a while. We may dissociate, or withdraw (even without knowing it) from
the painful emotion of a situation. The threat often is perceived as personal and psycho-
logical. We feel threats to our integrity, or our sense of well-being, or the painful threat
of loss of a person, position, or role that we value. Fear can create “tunnel vision” as we
focus only on the threat and forget to look around and assess what else might be hap-
pening (Izard and Ackerman 2000). Fear is the key emotion in anxiety. When we worry
about what may happen, we are anxious or afraid.
The phrase “dreading ahead” describes what many people feel when they describe
their anxiety. One man described to us his anxiety about his wife taking a job in another
town. He was worried (anxious) about both not wanting to give up his job and move, and
not being able to find a new job as good as the one he would be leaving. He was temporar-
ily frozen, experiencing great anxiety, dread, sadness, hurt, and depression. He was not
able to discern what bothered him most until he began to list his anxious fears. Not surpris-
ingly, he also discovered that he was angry that his wife presumed that she should go ahead
and accept the new job without considering his feelings more fully.
Fear and anger often interact in a patterned way. When one focuses on the “target”
of anger, the person or situation that may threaten something valuable, the anger-fear
sequence is set into motion (Figure 6.3).
Consider the list of the dynamics of anger and fear below. Fear and hurt underlie most
emotions of anger. Fear makes human beings experience vulnerability that we then expe-
rience as anger, more socially acceptable for adults than fear. The following list gives some
examples of interpersonal anger situations along with possible intermixed fears/anxieties.
Study these, then list a few angry situations of your own and see if you can determine how
fear/anxiety might be mixed in with your own anger.
Anger Situations
1. A woman is angry with her friend for calling her a name in public. (She is fearful of
not being accepted by others and of losing face.)
Figure 6.3 Anger-Fear Sequence
Perceived
threat
Fear
Anger
2. A newly promoted employee is angry because his secretary didn’t get the final report
to him on time. (He is afraid that his own supervisor will think he is not working
hard enough, and he really needs this job.)
3. A husband is furious that his wife has disclosed their private life to others in a hurtful
way. (He is frightened that their bond is no longer strong and that their relationship is
ending.)
4. A single parent overreacts to a child’s misbehaving at a family reunion by raising his
voice and ordering the child into a time out. (He is afraid that other family members
will criticize his parenting.)
5. An intimate partner casually indicates that she might change her plans and not visit
her fiancé when she had planned. Her partner says, “Well, if you have better things to
do than honor your commitments, go ahead.” (He has asked an old friend to meet his
significant other and fears looking foolish after speaking in glowing terms about the
wonderful woman he wants his friend to meet. He is afraid he is unimportant to her,
and he doesn’t want to lose face with his friend.)
Hurt
Hurt is an intense emotion that comes from feeling psychologically injured by another
person (Guerrero and LaValley 2006; Vangelisti and Sprague 1998). Hurt is inherently
interpersonal, even if the injury happened long ago. When people are deeply hurt, they
experience intensely strong feelings such as agony, despair, anger, sadness, and suffer-
ing. Hurt is a difficult emotion to experience without looking for someone to blame. The
feeling of being injured is painful enough that human nature causes us, often, to look for
a cause of the hurt. Often, someone has caused the hurt—true enough. When a partner
betrays another, the “cause,” or at least the trigger, of the hurt is very clear. When the
injured party stays frozen in the hurt/blame cycle, little changes. (We will discuss this
situation in detail in Chapter 10.) Great skill is required for both the injured party and the
person causing the harm to reconcile with each other, if they want to do so. Many times,
hurt is made worse when the person causing the injury will not listen or will not accept any
responsibility. Relationships end when the hurt is too great and the attempts at repair are
inadequate.
Common relational transgressions (Metts 1994) include betraying a confidence, leav-
ing someone out, sexual infidelity, lying and covering up, forgetting plans or special occa-
sions, flirting with a former partner, and physical abuse and making unfair comparisons
to other people (Bachman and Guerrero 2003a; Metts 1994). The best conflict resolu-
tion approach when someone tells you they are hurt, or even, “you hurt my feelings,”
is to inquire about what happened and how they interpreted the action. Listen and don’t
defend. You will be able to have your say, but the hurt person (whether you think the hurt
is reasonable or not) needs to be heard first. Then you can say, “I would like to tell you my
perspective; can you listen to me now?” (after you have reflected what you heard)
Attachment theory currently explains not only to infant/caregiver bonds, but also adult
relationships. Secure connections remain essential for physical health and human thriving
(Coan 2010; Early and Early 2011). The purpose of constructive conflict resolution is to
solve problems and preserve relationships. In the case of hurt and disrupted attachment
(anxious/ambivalent, avoidant, insecure, or disorganized) (Cozolino 2010) a key moment
of rupture can change everything. One long-term friendship between two women changed
irrevocably due to one woman’s angry attack on her friend in front of a group of women on
vacation together. They were not able to repair the rupture even though both tried. When
an “attachment injury” occurs, the needed response is repair. The good news is that rup-
tures can be repaired and connections can be woven together again (Early and Early 2011).
Dynamics can shift from danger through safety by creating a new story, a co-constructed
narrative, or a “third way.” Ignoring a rupture by denying that the other “should” not feel
hurt usually ends the relationship, or at least a relationship of depth.
Application 6.4 What Would Have Helped?
Think of a time when you hurt someone, or someone hurt you. First, write the feelings or emo-
tions you felt. Then write your assumptions about the other person, about yourself, and about your
relationship. What were the behaviors? From your perspective now, what might have helped? This
could be something either of you could have done. You could share only the last part of this activ-
ity, “What might have helped?” with your small group if you would like to preserve your privacy. It
may be the case that nothing could have helped; the rupture brought too much hurt. Not all hurts
can be repaired, but the basic movement of “rupture/ repair” restores connection and safety.
Humiliation
While fear is basic, anger more complex, hurt even more complex, humiliation carries even
deeper layers of emotion, and is more complex than anger, fear, and hurt. The act of humil-
iation involves putting someone down, holding them down, while rendering them helpless
to resist the debasement (Lindner 2014). Humiliation administers a devastating identity
injury. For a while, researchers viewed humiliation as another form of shame. Given the
violence unleashed in the world (such as in terrorism), as well as among those known
to each other, humiliation deserves more attention in conflict resolution. When a person
feels debased and humiliated that person is not available for integrative conflict resolution.
Differences can lead to transformation of difficult conflicts, but only in the framework of
respect. When condescension, patronizing, and arrogance (all forms of disrespect) braid
through any relationship, no transformation of a conflict is possible (Lindner 2014). Verbal
forms of humiliation reflect a dominating style of communication. Fear of being overcome
underlies the feelings of a bully or a dominator. If the person doing the humiliating, in an
interpersonal context, is not amenable to change, it may rest on the skill of bystanders,
people who are not the victims of humiliation, to speak up. Not everyone being humiliated
has the power to say, “I will not allow you to disrespect me,” stopping the dangerous inter-
action. You may, however. You might say, “Kevin, David does not deserve to be spoken to
that way. The way I see it is. . . .” Or “This line of conversation is not productive. Would
you be willing to say what you are saying another way?” Then if the bully keeps going, you
can say, forcefully, “Please, stop now.”
Sadness and Depression

Sadness and depression also influence conflict resolution. These feelings comprise the
southwest quadrant of the circumplex model. Sadness is not always a “negative” emotion,
although few like to feel sad. Sadness, mourning, and grief can in fact strengthen social
bonds. For instance, when loved ones come together around the death of a friend or family
member, the values of community and friendship are reaffirmed. Averill (1968) suggests
that in the course of evolution, grief increased the probability of surviving because of the
ways that enduring bonds are formed. Social media presents both a way to communicate
about a loss and express grief in an online community. Caution should be taken, however,
in using social media for communicating with glibness about a life-changing event for the
bereaved (Rosetto, Lannutti, and Strauman 2015). Social media provides both an opportu-
nity for community connection and a reason to take care.
Sadness slows a person down. This may give a chance for deeper reflection on what
is happening, giving the sad person more choices to take care of oneself and others. Sad-
ness communicates that there is trouble (Tomkins 1963) so the person should pay atten-
tion to one’s circumstances. Sadness is adaptive as well, because it may create a bridge of
empathy to another person. Unrelieved sadness may create anger or resentment over a long
time; this may turn into depression. In addition, many clinicians report elevated feelings
of anger, along with sadness and anxiety, when people are depressed (Rutter, Izard, and
Read 1986). Extreme sadness causes an almost total loss of pleasure and interest in one’s
surroundings, and leads to dejection and withdrawal. A person who is overwhelmingly
sad cannot participate in creative conflict transformation. It’s too difficult. Sadness and
depression refer to different emotional states. When sadness turns into clinical depression,
you will help yourself by seeking professional help, or your friends by suggesting they seek
assistance. If you experience overwhelming sadness, a flat feeling, or an inability to moti-
vate yourself to do the things that will help yourself (exercise; seeking positive activities;
socializing with friends; reflecting on your automatic, negative thoughts), then you will
benefit from professional assistance.
Sadness may help advance conflict resolution because feeling sad all the time is so
unpleasant that we are moved to find new solutions to problems. When we are so depressed
we can hardly get out of bed to function normally, we may ask, “What is wrong and what
can I do about it?” For example, Pamela found herself very sad every time she turned into
her driveway after work. Even though the day might have gone well enough at work, when
she came home she found herself feeling sad. One day she went to her friend’s house after
work and told her she just didn’t want to go home, then burst into tears. Pamela’s mother
had died a few months before. Her husband Baird went to the farthest end of the house
and turned on the TV when Pamela cried. Several times Pamela told Baird that she needed
comfort when she was so sad. Baird, however, felt extremely uncomfortable with Pamela’s
tears. He said once, when she asked for comfort, “But there’s nothing I can do. I am sorry
your mother is gone but I can’t change anything.” Pamela felt more sorrow and loneliness
at this point. Finally, after talking with her friend, Pamela decided to talk with Baird. After
explaining how she felt about coming home, their dialogue sounded like this:
Application 6.5 Sadness Leads to a Better Solution
Pamela: Baird, I know you care that my mother died and that I am so sad. But when you go
to the den and turn on the TV when I’m crying, I feel more lonely than ever. I start to
tell myself that you don’t care.
Baird: I care a lot but there’s nothing I can do.
Pamela: There is a lot you can do. You can listen to me, hold my hand, tell me you are here
for me, and that you are sorry I’m feeling so awful.
Baird: But that’s not doing anything. I can’t change anything and I feel helpless.
Pamela: You could change a lot for me. I wouldn’t feel so alone. I didn’t know you felt
helpless.
Baird: Yes—I see you so miserable and feel awful that I can’t do anything.
As this conversation progressed, both Pamela and Baird softened instead of hardened.
Pamela had been hardening into the perspective that “He doesn’t care.” Baird had been
hardening into the story that “Nothing I do makes any difference.” They found different
ways to stay together through Pamela’s sadness.
Some gender differences occur in the expression of sadness. Women are more likely
to express sadness and cover up their anger, whereas men are more likely to express anger
and cover up sadness (Timmers, Fischer, and Manstead 1998). In the previous example,
Pamela moved from sadness to anger at her husband’s inability to comfort her. Baird felt
angry at himself that he didn’t know what to do. Then he retreated into sadness. Both mis-
understood the emotions of the other until they talked through their dilemma.
Too little sadness expression leads to distorted emotional expression; too much sadness
expression can burden others. One function of sadness is that people experiencing sadness
are more likely than others to attempt to change their situation by cognitive reappraisal
(“I don’t think he meant to hurt me in the way he did; he was busy and distracted”) or by
apologizing or listening to music or doing other activities to change their mood. Women
have been found to be more skillful at emotion regulation in general (Rivers et al. 2007).
This gender-skill difference brings many challenges to heterosexual couple relationships.
Same-sex relationships with women often benefit from both partners being willing to deal
with sadness in conversation. More depends on personality than gender, however. Some
female couples experience the same challenges as opposite-sex relationships.
Disgust, Contempt, and Revulsion

Disgust, contempt, and revulsion are emotions that move to expel something noxious or
repulsive. In an adaptive sense, it makes sense to think that humans who learned to “spit
out” or expel bad food or water were more likely to survive. In interpersonal communica-
tion, we may be trying to “get rid of ” something (someone) repulsive when we use dis-
dain, contempt, condescension, and demeaning comments. We explored earlier in the book
how damaging contempt is in intimate relationships. Humiliation depends on contemptu-
ous communication and must be interrupted for anything positive to occur.
Disgust is one of those emotions to feel, reflect upon, and not communicate about until
you understand and process the raw emotion. Revulsion and disgust both break relation-
ship connections on the emotional level. Yet, disgust and revulsion might serve a posi-
tive function, as the following example shows. Kristin was a new bank employee. She
was mentored by a senior banker, a man with a very strong, dominating personality. In
one session, Mark, the senior executive, was upset with Kristin’s handling of a client. He
said, “We’re just about done here. I don’t have time to sit around all day and keep telling
you how to cultivate clients like this who have a lot of money. You’re not getting it. I’ll
give you one more chance. Watch me more closely next time.” Kristin felt angry, hurt,
belittled, threatened—and also noticed when she left Mark’s office that she felt nauseated.
Her revulsion led her to question whether she wanted to continue under Mark’s verbally
abusive mentoring. She asked her senior manager to assign her to someone else. Gottman’s
research (1993) points out the cascade effect that often goes into motion when disgust and
contempt are expressed. We referred to “the four horsemen of the apocalypse” in Chapter 1.
Gottman found that couples headed for divorce exhibit this pattern: “complaining and criti-
cizing, which leads to contempt, which leads to defensiveness, which leads to . . . with-
drawal from interaction (stonewalling)” (110).
Contempt expressed is like pointing a loaded gun at someone, pulling the trigger, and
then being surprised when they fall over (or the relationship is killed). Worse, sometimes
contempt is used consciously as a weapon to weaken the other person and gain power in a
relationship. It’s a good idea to get out of contemptuous relationships if you cannot influ-
ence the other, or yourself, to change.
Shame, Guilt, and Regret

Shame and guilt play an important role in regulating conflict. When people break social
norms, and receive formal or informal social sanctions (“How could you have done that?”)
they may be feeling shame, guilt, embarrassment, regret, or remorse (Nugier, Niedenthal,
Brauer, and Chekroun 2007). When you act in a way that is incompatible with your own
standards, your ideal self, or your own sociocultural values, you may feel these uncomfort-
able emotions (Frijda 1986; Fisher and Shapiro 2005).
Shame increases social cohesion, as long as one does not stay stuck in personal
shame. We try to avoid shameful situations because we lose face, lose self-esteem, and
generally feel miserable (Izard and Ackerman 2000, 260). Shame may also be present in
fear and anxiety. “Shaming” others usually leads to defensiveness, and works poorly as a
conflict resolution tactic. When we recognize that others feel shame or embarrassment,
we can further the cause of good conflict management by remaining gentle and consider-
ate. Shame hurts.
Shame also creates negative responses. Berry (2016, 130) recounts a story of Ena,
a high school girl who had repeatedly suffered sexual bullying in school. When a bully
approached her in class, in front of other students, and with the teacher not far away, she
reported, “I did not move, though I was screaming inside to do so. I never understood
how fear could do that to bodies. I did not ‘fight,’ nor did I experience ‘flight.’ I just took
it . . . At the same time I felt guilt and confusion. . . .” Ena experienced freezing, shame,
fear, and guilt all at the same time. In this way, shame can function to keep a desperately
needed change of power from happening.
People experience guilt when they perceive that they have injured, unjustly hurt, or
failed to help someone (Guerrero and LaValley 2006, 79). Guilt that comes when peo-
ple actually do or do not do things they value can motivate people to act differently, for
instance, to choose a nonreactive approach and to collaborate more quickly. Some people
feel guilt all the time, but that feeling is more akin to shame (about who one is as a person).
Real guilt comes from real actions or lack of actions. Making amends, as the 12-step pro-
grams require, helps. Making amends means expressing that you are aware of the harm you
caused and that you take responsibility for it. Making amends, a form of repair, restores
connections and restores self-esteem for all parties. The feeling of guilt is so unpleasant
for most people that if they can avoid their “run and hide” impulse, and move toward the
injured party, the guilty person will feel a lot better.
Regret can also serve a helpful role in conflict resolution. Painful regret can push
one to action rather than leave you mired in a sense of sorrow, self-pity, or helplessness
(Buechler 2008). You can undoubtedly remember times of painful regret, when something
you did could not be undone, but haunted you with feelings of regret. Regret can heal rela-
tionships when we atone for mistakes and when we learn from the past situation how to
manage our lives differently in the future. One example might be a situation in which you
neglect an important friendship. When your friend inquires, “Is something wrong? Did I
do something to offend you?” this inquiry might well move you to take action if you value
the friendship. You can invite your friend to do something, make her a priority, set aside
time, and restore connections between you. Regret ignored can turn into self-pity (“I never
seem to get it right”), which does no one any good.
Functions of Positive Emotions

Many times we do not think of positive emotions in relation to the effective management
of conflict. Several decades of research, especially the ideas of Seligman when he was
president of the American Psychological Association, Isen (1987), Frederickson (2003),
Fisher and Shapiro (2005), Socha (2008), and Shapiro (2011) point out the creative value
of positive emotions. Positive emotions radiate outward into integrative and transformative
conflict.
Joy, Love, and Laughter
Joy, love, and laughter clearly provided an adaptive role in human development. For
instance, altruistic individuals were more likely to “tend and befriend,” and therefore sur-
vive catastrophes. Positive emotions broaden an individual’s mindset, allowing one to
broaden and build. Whether in the lab or in everyday life, when people feel positive emo-
tions such as interest, joy, altruism, hope, sympathy, and empathy, they are more likely to
think creatively. When people feel good they are more likely to integrate new ideas, be
flexible, and remain open to information (Fredrickson 2003). When people feel safe, they
are able to grasp the opportunities of conflict instead of remaining paralyzed by the danger
of conflict.
Some organizations use these ideas for team building. When colleagues are able to
play together, they are more likely to clarify their life priorities, strengthen social ties,
and build skills to express love and care. In work-related conflicts, colleagues are more
likely to choose cooperative modes of conflict resolution when they like each other and
have shared positive emotional experiences (DeSilvilya and Yagil 2005). When stu-
dents were asked to think of positive meaning in their daily lives, at the end of a month
they scored higher on psychological resilience than those who focused on some neutral
task (Fredrickson 2003). Interest and joy in play interacts with affiliation (Izard and
Ackerman 2000). Rituals such as eating and playing games help people engage their
feelings rather than just their cognitive abilities (Maiese 2006). Eating a meal together
helps people relax and think of their opponents as people who want to solve prob-
lems. Many cultures signal the end of hostilities by having a meal together, giving gifts,
and sharing greetings and apologies. Nonhostile joking helps people see each other as
friendly others rather than enemies (Maiese 2006). Positive feelings (induced by watch-
ing positive-emotion films) help boost broadened thinking, and vice versa (Fredrickson
and Joiner 2002).
Community conflict resolution and transformation create a “positive spiral” in an
important way—people who give help can feel proud of their good deeds, and people
who receive help often feel grateful. Even people who simply witness good deeds can feel
elevated and more joyful (Fredrickson 2003).
Happiness, Serenity, and Contentment

Happiness, serenity, and contentment contribute greatly to resolving conflicts. When you
approach a problem with interest and a positive attitude, you communicate these feelings
to others involved, and they, too, are motivated to work with you (Deci 1992; Izard and
Ackerman 2000). Serenity might be explained as a kind of balance and equanimity; what-
ever happens in a conflict, the relationship will be preserved, along with an individual’s
sense of self. Positive emotions lead to empathy and sympathy. Communicating warmth
indicates that you see the other not as an enemy, but as a partner in conflict (Lindner
2014). Much that is positive is communicated through statements indicating confidence
and warmth, serenity and optimism, such as:
“I’m glad to get a chance to work on this issue with you.”
“We can come to a good outcome instead of wasting our energy struggling against
each other. I feel confident that we can work together.”
“What a relief to be facing this issue directly instead of skirting around it.”
“I am interested in what you have to say.”
(To an intimate): “You are important to me. I will do whatever it takes for us to get
past this time of hostility and mistrust. I remember what it feels like to actually like
each other.”
“That’s hilarious. I never thought of myself that way—you may be right. Uh oh!”
“OK, I’ll put down my guns if you will. We’re scaring each other to death.”
“After this meeting, I hope we will set up a meal for our team to look forward to.
This much hard work deserves a celebration.”
Notice that stating optimistic confidence sets the scene for raising the communication
bar to a high level, and expecting the best.
Throughout the first part of this book we emphasized the importance of taking the
other’s perspective while holding fast to your own thoughts and feelings. When we assume
that others want essentially what we want, we can join with them to solve problems instead
of seeing the other person as the problem. While incompatible goals certainly exist, peo-
ple of goodwill want to solve the current problem and enhance the relationship enough
to transform a conflict into an opportunity. The meta-goal can help transform competing
goals. Effective conflict resolution draws on feelings about and for the other person, and
for oneself. Creative solutions transform anger, fear, hostility, and mistrust into confidence,
contentment, and trust.
The Mid-Range: Zone of Effectiveness

Conflicts that are worked out in the mid-range of the level of emotional intensity resolve
more effectively than those that are left unexpressed or are handled with unrestrained emo-
tion. See Figure 6.4 for a graphic depiction of regulated conflict. Aristotle wrote about the
Golden Mean and the Buddha preached about the Middle Way. Low productivity occurs
when interpersonal conflicts are either not identified (but the emotions leak out anyway) or
when people indulge in unrestrained emotion (thus leading others to fight or flee). A lack
of regulation in personal conflicts damages the process. For instance, a divorcing couple,
attempting to share the custody of their two children, were close to agreement when the
Figure 6.4 Continuum of Conflict Intensity

High
productiveness
Potential for
Low
Low High
Unexpressed Regulated Unrestrained
conflict conflict conflict
Conflict intensity
wife exploded in a mediation session, saying, “He’s selfish! He always was and always
will be!” Her unregulated outburst ruined the chance for collaboration on their problem.
Regardless of the specific content, after an episode has passed, the other person will recall
what you said and did during the conflict. People have long memories for bad treatment.
Even if you feel perfectly justified for blowing up, your “bad behavior” will remain in
memory even if the conflict outcome works out reasonably well. You may lose a relation-
ship while trying to solve a problem.
Venting does nothing to help the conflict process. Venting (or avoiding) does not
remain your only option for expression. If you feel the need to vent, do it with a safe
friend, a counselor, or designated third party—not the conflict partner with whom you are
attempting to work. Venting can feel wonderful for a while—but the price is usually too
high to warrant the “Yes!” feeling of telling the other person off.
Unthinking avoidance of a conflict—pretending you don’t have strong feelings when
you do—will ultimately fail. Your feelings will come through, and the problem will remain
unresolved. Young couples who avoided emotional expression, especially when men
avoided speaking their emotion, were less happy than those who engaged in mid-range
emotional expression (Velotti et al. 2016). Avoidance leads to resentment, while unregu-
lated emotional expression leads to broken bonds of trust and affection.
Moderated emotions in conflict bring many advantages. The escalatory spiral will be
halted, you will learn more with self-restraint, and you will be able to be more creative
in your options when you don’t create a bitter enemy. You will not take actions, such as
revenge, that you would later regret or have to justify (Yoshimura 2007). Restraint of your
emotions, but not suppression, allows trust to build when trust has broken down.
Mindfulness: Thinking About Feelings

How do we learn to manage the raw emotions that make up conflict? As Welwood (1990)
writes in his book on love and relationships, we try to manage our lives so we avoid “raw”
feelings, but in fact we are human partly because we feel so deeply. He refers to feelings as
“raw” because we feel tender and vulnerable, but also because our emotions, at the begin-
ning of a conflict, are “uncooked.” They have not been processed. When we approach con-
flict as a warrior of the heart, we draw on some of the metaphors from earlier in the book.
Conflict is a dance, or is like martial arts, and is like stepping along an unfamiliar path.
Since we cannot avoid conflict, we can learn to move skillfully. No more positive metaphor
exists for all that is good in conflict than the heart. When in danger, we may remind our-
selves not to lose heart. You might be described by your friends as a person having a heart
of gold, or being warm-hearted. The heart is viewed as filled with positive emotions and
feelings (Reeves 2010). Hearts can also be cold or hard. We have the option to choose to
soften and open our hearts to others with compassion, and to ourselves as worthy of good
treatment.
Starting out on the difficult path of working with strong emotions, you will find these
ideas helpful. Awareness is “by far the most essential, powerful resource we have for
effecting change and working with life’s challenges” (Riskin 2010; Welwood 1990, 23).
Awareness draws not on “knowing about something,” but on clarity. We are clear when we
can use all our senses to tell what is actually happening, when we can move with fluidity,
as though we are a zoom lens that can move in and out to change perspective. When we
stay clear and fluid, we can stay stable instead of being blown around or thrown off our
path. We can cultivate mindfulness of others’ needs as well as our own; becoming less self-
centered builds bridges instead of walls. When a person is mindful or reflective, instead of
reactive, that person will become more aware of the ways he filters incoming information.
She becomes aware of her biases and distortions, saying, “Hmm, I usually misperceive
very talkative, confident men. I’d better listen more carefully.” She knows herself and her
distorted lens, which enables her to correct her lens, at least some of the time.
Chapman (2012) teaches a mindfulness tool in communication workshops. The meta-
phor used to notice whether communication is open, closed, or somewhere in-between is
the traffic light. Using this image, a green light communication pattern means communi-
cation is flowing well, a red light indicates closed or defensive communication, or a lack
of listening, and a yellow light indicates something in between red light and green light.
Working with the yellow light takes practice in mindfulness (Chapman 2012, 6). Mindful
communication means that when you sense uncertainty, confusion, or danger that you slow
down (yellow light).
Application 6.6 Traffic Light Mindfulness Practice
You can practice this in your small group.

1. Choose a current, emotion-laden conflict to role-play.
2. Choose people to take the roles of two or three people. As the people discuss how to trans-
form the conflict, others hold up red, green, or yellow cards to indicate the emotional tone in
the conflict.
3. Any time a yellow card goes up, everyone in the role-play stops for a count of five to think
about what they are feeling, then resumes the conversation. Try this as a tool for learning
mindfulness.
4. What did you learn when you stopped at the yellow light, to reflect on what to say next?
Another mindfulness requirement is to remain compassionate toward ourselves and oth-

ers. Compassion makes us strong and expanded as conflict managers, since when we are
compassionate we make space for our own feelings and the feelings of others. Making space
is like stepping out of the flames (of emotion), but rather than running from the fire, we sit
“next to it,” look into the fire, and reflect on what is hurting. We have freedom to think, feel,
move, and choose actions (Welwood 1990, 24). Calm reflection often leads to compassion.
When strong emotions toss us around, we feel so miserable or anxious or furious or
scared that we begin to tell ourselves stories. These stories become bad mental habits that
lead us to take shortcuts to action/reaction instead of thinking and feeling our way along
a new path in a conflict. These “stories” become dramas that we believe are true, as was
the case for Pamela and Baird as they told themselves stories about each other regarding
Pamela’s grief and Baird’s response. Stories filter what we are able to think and feel. As
we listen and tell our conflict narratives with an ear to the underlying emotion, we receive
invaluable information about what our own and the other’s core concerns really are. When
we notice a shift in emotion, we can usually figure out why and how the conflict became
intractable or reached impasse.
Practice your awareness of the triggering event. When you know what sets you off,
you are better able to handle the episode creatively (Shapiro 2016). You can pinpoint that
exact moment when a discussion turns into a conflict. Many times you will notice a defen-
sive reaction, a rebuff, a rude comment, an explosion of anger, or your own inner emotion
or story that notifies you, “That’s enough. I’ve had it.” Or you might notice someone else
about to lose it. One of the best transformation tools depends on metacommunication,
such as, “We need to tread carefully here,” or “I’d like to slow this down.” Respond to the
triggering even with care and excellent communication, rather than escalation or extreme
emotional expression.
Finally, the “warrior of the heart” needs courage. Courage is ordinarily depicted as
a characteristic of “the lone, separate person who defies vulnerability and fear” (Jordan
2008). Jordan, one of the pioneers of the Relational-Cultural Model of therapy, founds her
ideas, as does Welwood, on a different model of courage. Courage derives from the Latin
root cor, meaning heart, “the seat of feeling, thought” (Jordan 2008). Courage involves
bringing even painful truths into a relationship. It often involves courage to come into con-
flict. We have thoroughly explored the lures of both avoidance and escalation. Courage of
the heart and feelings involves finding the truth with awareness, resisting the tried and true
stories that propel us to act in habituated ways, and the true bravery required to act in an
honest and compassionate manner.
Jordan suggests that we redefine vulnerability as an emotion and position that requires
courage. Vulnerability indicates “we are open to the influence of others at the same time
that we are open to our need for others” (Jordan 2008, 213). In a dominant, power-over
culture, we don’t feel safe when vulnerable. In a connected, relational culture, we can be
moved by our feelings, express them with care, and continue to resolve our differences.
We will practice some of the “first steps” ideas for dealing with feelings by studying
the following case and applying the ideas presented above.
Case 6.2 It’s Not Yours to Loan!
Jackie and Tom are a married couple. They both work in real estate, Jackie in mortgage financ-
ing and Tom in sales. Tom’s grandmother died and left each of her five grown grandchildren
$100,000. Jackie and Tom were amazed and pleased. As they talked, they agreed to put the
money into a money market account until the real estate market settled down, at which time
they would make a down payment on their next home. Both Tom and Jackie like the duplex they
bought when they married. They can afford the current mortgage because one side of the duplex
is rented. They feel no hurry to buy something larger, although they are quite crowded, especially
since the value of their duplex has dropped. In a recent appraisal, they were disappointed at how
the duplex had lost value.
Half a year went by. Jackie usually managed the money, paying bills out of a joint checking
account to which both contribute. One day Tom was at the bank and as he made a deposit, noticed
that the money market account was down by about $50,000. In alarm, he asked the teller to track
down the activity on the account. What he found shocked him. Jackie had taken $50,000 out
3 months before, then had made small deposits back into the account since then. He rushed home
and confronted her. After a long, escalating fight in which Jackie was first evasive, then defensive,
(continued)
and Tom was accusing and unbelieving, Jackie confessed what had happened. Her parents had
gotten themselves into trouble with credit card debt. Jackie arranged to loan them $50,000 with
their promise and assurance that they would quickly pay her back. But Jackie’s mother needed an
unexpected operation. Her parents had made no payments back to Jackie. Jackie, panicked, tried
to replenish the account but knew she could never do it on her salary. Here is part of their first
conflict episode:
Tom: I cannot believe you would deceive me and do something so dangerous, dishonest,
and selfish. What about our plans? You had absolutely no right to touch that money
without talking to me. (Notice harsh start-up.)
Jackie: I feel terrible. But my parents had a good plan for paying us back. It’s not their fault
that Mom had to have surgery. Have a heart, Tom. (She is not taking his outrage
seriously.)
Tom: They needed help for their credit card problems and stupid debts. I might have
wanted to help, but you didn’t ask. Now I can’t trust you. You are not the woman I
thought you were—you are a sneak and I will never be able to trust you again. (Now
he is using damaging labeling.)
Jackie: Fine!!! I’ll put every cent of my salary in the fund and you can tell my parents that you
wouldn’t help them. I’ll tell them how selfish you are. What daughter wouldn’t want
to help her parents when they had gotten in trouble because of terrible jobs and a
sinking economy? We had the money, and they didn’t. They’ll pay us back. I had no
idea you were so heartless. (She’s threatening and attacking his character.)
Tom: And I had no idea you were so gullible and deceitful! There’s no earthly way your
parents could have paid us back, even without your Mom’s operation. You care more
about them than our plans. (More labeling and attacking, this time, of her parents.)
Jackie: And you apparently care more about money than love and helping out. (Character
assassination!)
Using the ideas of Welwood, Riskin, Chapman, and Jordan from our earlier discussion, let’s
see what awareness, flexibility, mindfulness, compassion, and vulnerability might sound like. A
counselor asked each of them to reflect on the storm of emotion they were feeling before they
talked with each other about the conflict again. They each wrote in a journal as they reflected.
Jackie: I can see from the look on Tom’s face and hear in his voice that he is shocked and
dismayed. It’s extremely painful to me to know that I betrayed his trust. I wish I had
talked to him and told him about my parents’ need. I was afraid that he would say
no, and I believed that with a bonus coming in at Dad’s business, they would be
able to pay us back. Well, I see that I was not thinking. I just wanted to help and I
felt guilty having the money and not helping them. I want to let Tom know that our
values are different. In my culture, you help people in your family who are in need,
period. But I hated feeling scared all the time and I’m actually glad Tom found out. I
don’t know what to do.
(continued)
Tom: I feel awful about blowing up at Jackie the way I did. I humiliated her. And yet I felt
so shocked and scared that she took my money without telling me. More than that,
I realize that I don’t like or trust her parents. I am furious that they manipulated
her, the way they have done before with kids in the family. Jackie’s right, in a way.
I do feel ungenerous with them. Her dad’s an alcoholic and her mom works way
too hard. Her dad expects people to take care of him. I think her mom put all those
charges on the credit cards because she feels entitled to whatever she wants. I feel
sorry for her mom. I’m still angry at Jackie, but I have seen for years how her parents
take advantage of their kids. But I can’t talk to Jackie about that—she’d be really
hurt. And now we are furious with each other. But under all that, I feel scared and
sad. It’s not really the money; it’s the trust issue. And I can imagine something like
this happening in the future.
Tom and Jackie are on their way to becoming “warriors of the heart.” They are telling the truth
to themselves, which will enable them to tell the truth to each other, and solve their problems.
With help, they can tackle the trust issues, rebuild their bond with each other, make agree-
ments about hearing what the other needs to say, no matter what, and repair the rupture in
their relationship.
Before the counselor asked them to reflect in their journals, and then talk with each other
again, Tom and Jackie had begun to tell themselves stories, make predictions, and believe
these predictions. If they had listed their “stories,” or automatic thoughts, they would have
been following “hot thoughts.” Wires that carry electricity are called “hot” wires. Similarly,
the automatic thoughts that are most connected to strong feelings are called “hot” thoughts.
These thoughts conduct the emotional charge, so these are the thoughts that are important to
identify, examine, and sometimes alter to change our feelings (adapted from Greenberger and
Padesky 1995).
Case 6.3 Strong Emotions and Automatic Thoughts
Write down a situation that you are experiencing in the present or immediate past about which you
have strong emotions, like Tom and Jackie did. Then write down the automatic thoughts (the hot
ones) that lead from your emotional situation. Some questions that might help you discover your
automatic stories are these:
• What was going through my mind just before I started to feel this way?
• What am I afraid might happen?
• What is the worst thing that could happen if it is true?
• What does this mean about how the other person(s) feels and thinks about me?
• What images or memories do I have in this situation? (from Greenberger and Padesky
1995, 51)
Here is another example of a situation full of feeling.
Case 6.4 You Voted for Who?
You have just discovered that your fiancé has voted the opposite ticket from you in the presidential
primary election. You have both argued over this; you cannot believe that he/she feels so differ-
ently. Your fiancé reminds you that you share a lot of values in common, but you still feel disbeliev-
ing and shocked. Automatic thoughts:
If we are so different on something as important as who is president, what will this mean for
our future together?
I am ashamed to tell my family how she/he voted.
I never saw myself as being married to someone so different from me. Is there more about
him/her that I don’t know? How can I find out?
Is this marriage right for me?
Using awareness to gain clarity, to build in space to reflect, to stop oneself from telling stories, and
to remain gentle with oneself and others is a key tool for working with feelings. Feelings are facts,
but with attention and care, we can work with our feelings and still be honest and be ourselves.
The following additional techniques will help you work with strong emotion.
Express Anger Responsibly
Anger can be relationally lethal if you express it with contempt, disgust, exaggeration,
shaming, and other mixtures of strong negative feelings. Anger can be expressed in a way
that is clear, calm, firm, respectful, honest, and compassionate. This way of speaking
works well as you express any strong emotion.
Mace (1987) suggests the following guidelines for responsible expression of anger:
1. Verbally state the anger. Just as one says, “I am hungry,” say, “I am angry.”
2. Distinguish between venting and acknowledging anger.
3. Agree that you will never attack each other in a state of anger.
4. Work to find the stimulus for the anger. It won’t go away just because it is expressed.
Mace (1987) summarizes his approach (for use with intimate partners) as follows: “I find
myself getting angry with you. But you know I am pledged not to attack you, which would
only make you angry too, and alienate us. What I need is your help to get behind my anger
to what really is causing it, so that we can do something about it together.” The response
to this is, “I don’t like your being angry with me, but I don’t blame you for it. And since I
know you won’t attack me, I needn’t put up my defenses and get angry with you in turn. I
appreciate your invitation to help you get through to the underlying cause of your anger,
because I care about our relationship, and it should help both of us to find out what is really
happening to us” (97). When you practice this approach to communicating anger, you will
find it doesn’t seem strange. The rewards for this kind of expression will help you keep
using the approach.
Nonviolent communication (NVC) training helps in many situations in addition to

intimate relationships. Male parolees, undergoing substance-abuse treatment after their
incarceration, were trained with principles of nonviolent communication (very similar to
principles in this book). Those parolees who learned NVC principles, and practiced them,
developed more empathy, support skills, and ability to cope with heightened emotion than
did those who received a different kind of training (Marlow et al. 2012). As scholars of
communication, you may be able to integrate conflict transformation training and educa-
tion in professional roles you will take in your career.
Use the X-Y-Z Formula for Clarity

Often, finding the right words to communicate anger is difficult. The X-Y-Z formula will
help one express any difficult emotion. Here are its components:
∙ When you do X
∙ In situation Y
∙ I feel Z
An administrative assistant might say, “When you interrupt me (X) when I am on the
phone (Y), I feel rattled and belittled (Z).” Her response, taking responsibility for feel-
ing upset yet letting the other person know what produced her feelings, is more likely to
result in a constructive solution than if she had said, “I don’t get any respect around here!”
Another way to use the X-Y-Z format is this:
∙ When you do X in this specific situation

∙ I feel Y
∙ What I want instead is Z
The second format incorporates a request into the sequence. Both are helpful tools to
learn.
The X-Y-Z skill has the advantage of clarifying the issue of concern for the
recipient of strong emotion and urging the sender to take responsibility for his or her
emotional reaction. The first format is helpful when the situation needs exploration.
Requests for change will come later. In the second format, the request is lodged in a
specific, descriptive form so that the recipient might reduce defensiveness and respond
appropriately.
Actively Listen to Emotional Communication

As you listen to someone express a negative emotion, you experience a natural tendency to
experience your own fear and then to respond defensively, as in, “I only interrupt you when
it is important to the company—get off my case.” Remember, however, that when someone
is upset with you, he or she needs to express that feeling or the feeling will turn into resent-
ment, despair, sadness, or some other emotion. You can’t “argue” or “reason” someone
out of any feeling. When you say, “You shouldn’t feel disappointed/angry/sad,” this injunc-
tion may increase, not decrease, the emotion. The other person may feel frustrated and
misunderstood because you are devaluing the other’s real feelings. You don’t have to agree
with feelings to listen respectfully.
Case 6.5 Roommate to Roommate
Here is an example of respectful listening to someone who is upset. Your roommate has just said:
When you leave your clothes on the floor (X) and I have people in after my night class (Y),
I feel embarrassed (Z).
Recipient: So my clothes on the floor really get you mad? (reflection—not perfect, because the
roommate said “embarrassed,” but it’s good enough.)
Then you might ask one of these questions and make one of the statements:
1. Does it make you mad all the time or just if people are coming over?
2. Is this a big deal that bothers you a lot, or is it a minor irritation, or somewhere in between?
3. Let’s both come up with some ideas. I’ll bet we’ll figure something out
4. It’s important to me that we give and take because I like having you as a roommate.
The X-Y-Z format deescalates conflict.
Protect Yourself from Verbal Abuse

When another’s expression of anger, rage, or contempt burns out of control, you have a
responsibility to protect yourself. Listening to belittling, hostile blame, ridicule, demean-
ing or untrue accusations, sarcastic name-calling, contempt, or actual physical threats is
not good conflict management. The other person should be told, firmly and consistently, “I
won’t listen to this kind of talk. I can’t hear anything important you’re trying to say when
you’re demeaning me.” Then you can leave or disconnect from the phone, giving the other
person a chance to cool off. You can say, “Wait!” or “Stop!” in a firm voice. Never try to
argue with a person who is engaged in verbal abuse. (It’s like arguing with an alcoholic—
nothing healing can happen until the person is not drinking.) But just as you would move
to stop the abuse of a child, you have the responsibility to stop verbal abuse in a conflict,
if you possibly can.
Verbal abuse leads to escalation or withdrawal, hinders conflict resolution, and lowers
the dignity and self-esteem of all parties. Productive reception of someone’s anger may not
be possible until boundaries are reset and conversation takes a more constructive tone. You
can raise your voice (without shouting) and speak in a firm, no-nonsense tone. Of course,
as a student of conflict resolution, you possess skills that will make it unnecessary for you
to ever use verbal abuse!
Conflict is not always polite, but constructive conflict is never abusive or violent.
When you know you are overpowered, or cannot stop the verbal abuse from another, leave.
You may need help from friends or professionals to do so. You are never responsible
for someone else’s verbal abuse, as long as you are using reasonably constructive
communication.
Use Fractionation
The essential conflict reduction tactic known as fractionating is an idea developed by Follett
(1940) and later called “fractionation” by Fisher (1971). Fractionation reduces the intensity
of emotion in conflicts by focusing attention on the sizing of disputes. Conflicts can be bro-
ken down from one big mass into several smaller, more manageable conflicts. Fractionating
conflict does not make it disappear, of course; it simply makes the components of large
conflicts more approachable by parties who are trying to manage their disputes. Conflicts
“do not have objective edges established by external events” (158). Rather, conflicts are
like a seamless web, with indistinguishable beginnings and endings. Choices are almost
always available as to how to size, and therefore manage, conflicts. When you choose to
“downsize” a conflict, you probably also downsize the big emotion. This simple idea is one
of the most useful conflict management tactics. Almost all conflicts can be made smaller
without being trivialized. Smaller conflicts carry less strong emotion. Rather than saying, “I
can see we will never solve the problem of where we want to spend our vacations and I feel
completely discouraged,” you could say, “I propose we work on this Spring break vacation,
come to agreement, and then return to what we do in the future after we have a good time.”
Use Positive Language to Work with Strong Emotion

Communication students transform conflicts with their use of language. As discussed ear-
lier in this chapter, positive emotions help people broaden their thinking, reflect, and build
on integrative ideas. You can adopt the “contribution system” (essentially, each person
acknowledges that he or she contributes something to the problem, rather than blaming
the other person). Fisher and Shapiro’s ideas from Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as
You Negotiate (2005) will change your language from negative language to positive lan-
guage. Study Difficult Conversations for excellent language that leads to moderated emo-
tion (Stone, Patton, and Heen 1999). Express appreciation and all the core concerns, use
“we” language, involve people in decisions that affect them (which reduces defensiveness),
and show respect by asking for opinions and advice from others.
You will benefit from Rosenberg’s influential book Speak Peace in a World of Con-
flict (2005), another resource full of the language of peaceful communication.
Personal Responsibility for Emotional

Transformation
As we have explored, emotions naturally arising in conflict often “feel bad.” Peacemak-
ing is a crucial stress reduction mechanism for people (Aureli and Smucny 2000; Shapiro
2016). In fact, “post-conflict anxiety and reconciliation may function as part of the human
homeostatic mechanism, which regulates and stabilizes relationships between former
opponents” (Butovskaya 2008, 1557).
As we think about change, we often try to change the other. This “change the other”
attempt usually yields little that is constructive. Sometimes we can change the situation.
Finally, we can deeply influence, from the inside out, only ourselves. Change in your interior
communication or thoughts changes the entire system. This is especially true as we work
with our own emotions, taking responsibility for how we feel. No longer can we accurately
say, “I couldn’t help it. He pushed all my buttons.” With reflection, we know where our but-
tons are, how to manage our actions, and how to gain enough space to think while feeling.
We might call this the watershed principle, based on where water flows along the Continental
Divide. On one side, water flows toward the Atlantic, yet just a few feet farther away, it flows
toward the Pacific. Very small changes can produce enormous effects. Similarly, in con-
flict interactions, small personal changes reverberate throughout the entire system and bring
results that are much larger than you would ever imagine.
Because self-change in a conflict is difficult, it usually requires prerequisites. If you

are going to alter your own emotionally based behavior rather than assert that your feel-
ings and actions are only “natural” or “only in response to what she did,” you have to care
about the relationship. If the relationship is of no consequence to you, then you feel little
impetus to change. The essential point is that you are not waiting for the other to change
first—someone has to “step up to the plate.”
In conclusion, working with strong emotions by understanding them, reflecting,
choosing actions instead of reactions, and learning to express yourself precisely when you
are feeling strongly—all this personal growth and responsibility leads to better conflict
resolution. Radical self-responsibility means we take seriously our own possibilities for
infusing hope and positive change into the world. This is a lifelong work in progress.
Out beyond the ideas of right doing and wrong doing,
There is a field.
I’ll meet you there.
Jelaluddin Rumi
Source: From The Essential Rumi, Translated by Coleman Barks. 1995.
Summary
Emotions are states of feeling that arise naturally call. The popular notion that you can get rid of emo-
during conflict. During conflict a natural tension of tions by expressing them (the catharsis view) is not
opposite occurs—to soften or harden. Attachment accurate. The anger-fear cycle details what is under-
theory is an emotion-regulating system, focusing on neath feelings of anger. Other emotions such as sad-
safety and danger; we recommend increasing safety ness and depression can alert us to trouble in the
and connection so conflict resolution approaches relationship.
can actually be used. The circumplex model of emo- The functions of positive emotions and their
tion presents and organizes a theory of emotions. role in conflict resolution are described. Core Con-
Feelings and how they fit into the model, are pre- cerns provide a framework for remembering inte-
sented, along with a list of emotions typical when grative conflict approaches.
one’s needs are and are not being met. Enough You have a better chance of productive conflict
strong feeling is required to engage and collaborate if you neither deny nor blow up—rather, express
in conflict—strong feeling can be used for positive whatever feelings you have in the mid-range. Mind-
purposes. Emotional intensity varies and one should fulness, awareness, flexibility, compassion, and
not predict a conflict’s trajectory based on the first vulnerability are ways to express strong emotions
level of intensity. People experience emotions as for a positive result. Learning how to catch your
good or bad, and relationships are defined by the automatic thoughts, express anger responsibly, and
kind of emotion that is expressed. take personal responsibility for your own emotional
Emotions serve a variety of functions, and neg- transformation yields big payoffs for managing con-
ative emotions such as anger can serve as a wakeup flict productively.
Key Terms
emotions 195 Core Concerns Framework 202 anger-fear sequence 208
circumplex model of affect 201 feeling words 203 vulnerability 208
gender differences 212 compassion 218 responsible expressions

mid-range 216 triggering event 219 of anger 222
warrior of the heart 217 automatic thoughts 221 X-Y-Z formula 223
awareness 217
Review Questions
1. Define emotions. 11. Explain the adaptive theory of emotions
2. What is the tension of opposites that occurs applied to negative and positive emotions.
with emotions and conflict? 12. Why would one want to be in the mid-range
3. Describe the main function of emotions in of emotional expression? What happens when
engaging conflict resolution activities. you express more extreme emotions?
4. How are feelings and emotions related? 13. What does it mean to become a “warrior of the
5. List some common misconceptions about heart”?
emotions. 14. What are automatic thoughts and how are they
6. How do these misconceptions hinder effective connected to emotions?
conflict resolution? 15. List ways to express anger productively.
7. How do negative emotions serve us in 16. Why would you want to change yourself rather
conflicts? than others?
8. What is the anger-fear sequence? 17. What are some of the reasons change is
9. How do sadness, disgust, and shame, and guilt difficult?
influence conflict parties? 18. Explain self-responsibility in relation to
10. What are “feeling words”? What makes the emotional understanding and regulation.
study of feeling words useful?
Part Two
Special Applications
Chapter 7
Analyzing Conflicts
The previous chapter developed ideas on how to understand and work with emotions. You
work with emotions in the heat of conflict and after the conflict, when you reflect and plan
your future approaches. The present chapter presents methods for analyzing conflicts—
thinking about conflicts in a reflective manner. You will learn to analyze from the systems
level as well as using micro-level analysis. You will use this level of analysis when you
write a paper on a specific conflict, when you intervene in conflicts as an employee or
third party, or when you decide to think through intimate and family conflicts to gain
insight about how to change the structure of the conflict. In this chapter, you will focus
more on thinking and analysis than on in the moment communication behavior.
Have you ever been in a conflict in which you were so perplexed you asked, either
silently or aloud, “What is going on here?” Conflict can create confusion; we can’t clearly
see the underlying system dynamics as they unfold. As you learned in the last chapter,
when emotions are aroused, “thinking while feeling” becomes even more difficult. When
you can analyze your conflicts on both (1) macro and (2) micro levels, you will be empow-
ered to make more productive choices both in the midst of the chaos and after the chaos
subsides, as you learn, reflect, and plan for the future.
Most people cannot accurately describe the system dynamics (macro level) impact-
ing them. People embroiled in an emotionally involving conflict are very likely to see
the problems as coming from the behavior, personality, and morality of the other players
(Mayer 2009). One of your first tasks as a manager, parent, or third party is to figure out
the system rather than taking the easy out of pinning a personality label on the problem
person. Steve, for example, when asked, “Why do your workgroup meetings always end
in people shouting?” says, “I just don’t know—we have a lot of personality issues that
make us not get along.” Steve feels trapped in a system. As with Steve, all of us are always
embedded in a wider system impacting us. In this chapter, we will give you an orientation
to system dynamics and some tools for understanding how systems work.
At the micro level, which involves the familiar territory of communication behavior,
most of us are notoriously inaccurate in describing our own behavior in a conflict. We
develop blind spots about our own behavior, and rigid ways of seeing the other. The person
who believes the world is a win/lose place often doesn’t see that this view sets competitive
communication behaviors in motion. Self-fulfilling prophecies are enacted over and over
as we provoke the very behavior we accuse the other in the conflict of perpetuating. Then
we each make ourselves out to be the other’s victim. This chapter will help you describe
conflicts, as an insider and an outsider.
Macro-Level Analysis
Systems Theory
Full analysis of a conflict can best be accomplished by (1) describing the workings of the
overall system and how those connect to (2) recurring communication patterns inside the
system. One of the most helpful approaches to macro-level analysis is general systems
theory, which tells us about the workings of entire systems and subsystems in organiza-
tions, small groups, and families.
Systems theory helps us answer the question, “How does this work?” Conflicts are
seldom managed productively by attention to blame or causality. Parties notoriously punc-
tuate conflicts differently, saying, for instance, “It started when Shannon dropped out of
the leadership team,” which may be countered by, “No, it started when Karen moved the
project deadline up by two months.”
Extensive discussions of systems theory applied to various contexts can be found
in Gregory Bateson’s two major works Steps to an Ecology of Mind (1972) and Mind
and Nature (1980), cornerstones of systems theory writing and research.1 More recently,
Coleman (2014) summarizes and critiques the promises and limits of systems theory in
intractable, difficult, conflicts.
Systems theory provides a lens through which to analyze what happens—that con-
flicts are interlocking sequences, like a play production in which everyone plays a part.
Key concepts of systems thinking follow:
∙ Wholeness. We must look at the entire system, not just a collection of individual
behaviors (Christakis and Fowler 2009). Every individual is embedded within a rela-
tional system. The interpersonal system, in turn, is embedded in a larger network of
relationships.
∙ Organization. It is true that the unit is made up of individuals, but it nevertheless
functions as a unit. Each unit has its own patterns of organization—what is the over-
all picture?
∙ Patterning. We are interested in what patterns seem connected. What patterns are
predictable, and what functions do these patterns serve? Many times people cling to
patterns of behavior that seem to make no sense, but from the whole system perspec-
tive, they do make sense (Papp, Silverstein, and Carter 1973).
Systems Theory Principles and Practices
1. Selected principles derived from systems theory will help you understand the
holistic, or systemic, nature of any conflict. The following suggestions, adapted
from an historical article by Papp and colleagues (1973) and supplemented by
Coleman (2014) break down the complicated ideas of systems theory in a clear way.
1
The systems approach to describing normal family processes is discussed thoroughly by Galvin and
Brommel (1986) and Walsh (1984). Overviews of systems theory and the change process are provided
by Minuchin (1974), Neill and Kniskern (1982), Hoffman (1981), Napier and Whitaker (1978), Johnson
(1977), and Papp, Silverstein, and Carter (1973). These classic approaches provide an insightful
perspective for viewing conflict.
232 Part 2 Special Applications
Conflict in systems occurs in chain reactions. Rather than pinpointing one person
as the cause of the conflict (Kellett 2007), look instead for predictable “chain reac-
tions,” because what every person does affects every other person. Study the chain
reactions—see who picks up what cues and identify the part each plays in the run-
away spiral. Satir (1972) uses an image of a family as a mobile in which members
respond to changes in each other. If one member responds to a situation, the other
members must consciously or unconsciously respond to the movement in the system.
The same kind of interdependence exists in organizations and small groups. One
cannot not affect other members of a system. This idea can help empower people
who think, “I can’t make any difference,” “I am just an entry-level employee,” or who
are dependent on parents financially. People who feel low power are often not able to
see that the other is dependent on them.
Systems operate with circular causality, a concept that suggests that assigning a
beginning is less important than looking at the sequence of patterns in the conflict process.
Analysts must understand how complex, nonlinear systems function, and change (Coleman
2014). Almost always, conflict participants identify the other as the cause while portraying
the self as innocent. One group member accused, “I do not feel safe in this group because
you have refused to recognize my existence when we see each other outside of this meet-
ing.” The surprised recipient of the accusing statement responded, “I have never ignored
you. You look down when you see me.” No one cause explains the spiral of mistrust
between the two group members. All systems are characterized by circular causality—each
person affects the other. We might take e-mail messages as an example. When people start
sending negative e-mail or text messages they often feel justified and do not see the nega-
tive effect that inflammatory messages create. The person who “fires off” a nasty e-mail
or text feels better, but the person who receives it (or hears about it) feels worse, fires off
another message, and so forth.
Descriptive language is the basic tool for assessing the system from a “no blame”
perspective. By describing, you will avoid nominating others as the villains, heroes, healthy/
unhealthy person, or victim. As you have previously learned, even in analysis, labeling
serves no good purpose. Describing does. Note the difference in the following vignettes:
Wife: He’s too needy. I don’t know how he expects me to come home from a pressured day at
work, wade through the three kids, all of whom want my attention, and ask him calmly,
“How was your day?” while kissing him sweetly on the cheek. He should grow up.
(Evaluative language.) And now he’s calling me cold!
The same vignette using descriptive language.

Wife: Scott wants to be greeted by me when I first get home. What happens, though, is that by
the time I hit the front door, all three children clamor for my attention. Scott’s usually in
the back of the house in his study, so by the time I physically get to him, I’m involved with
one of the children. Then he doesn’t get my full attention. He’s right that I am distracted.
And frankly, I don’t want to try to split myself in four pieces at that particular time.
In the second scenario, ideas for change already present themselves, whereas in the
first scenario, Scott’s wife labels Scott as the problem. The couple is not likely to find solu-
tions to the conflict while the wife views Scott as the villain (the childish partner) who is
causing the problem by being too needy.
When you are in a conflict you will need to stretch to move out of blaming the other,
and into describing how your behavior and the other’s behavior trigger one another. David,
a vice president in a marketing company, was in charge of hiring a video producer for a
client’s product. When the video production supervisor didn’t solve a problem but said,
“Maybe you can find a solution,” he responded by writing in an e-mail to the whole video
team, “What is the matter with you people? What don’t you understand about ‘You are
responsible’? Do I have to do all your work for you? Is everyone in your organization a
slacker?” Yet, in conversation David was able to say, “Well, I did raise my voice with them
in the initial phone call. Maybe that did keep them from taking the initiative.”
Beginnings matter greatly, in organization, intimate relationships, and groups. Positive
initial communication, no matter how seemingly insignificant, can trigger more positive
behavior in the conflict scenario (Coleman 2014).
2. Each member develops a label and a specific role in the system. Labeling serves
an explanatory function for the entire group (Kellett 2007). Labels may keep people
from changing; however, the labeling process itself can be changed. For instance,
the “watchdog” in an organization may be carrying too much of the quality control.
A person labeled as the watchdog may also be excluded, or seen as ready to pounce
on any wrongdoing. Conflicts arise because if the watchdog stops performing the
function reinforced by the group, others will try to pull her back into the role.
The role may, however, limit her and others.
When certain individuals in the system specialize in specific functions, oth-
ers may not develop those capabilities. For instance, in one sorority house, Jan was
known as the “peacemaker” of the group. She could be counted on to help people
solve their problems. In one ongoing conflict, however, Theresa and Pat disagreed
vehemently with each other over how literally to enforce some house rules. They
blew up at each other, knowing they could count on Jan to help patch things up.
Theresa and Pat were not forced to make their own peace because Jan always rushed
in. In this situation, some training in conflict skills for the whole group would help;
Jan can also say, “I think you two can work this out.”
Another limiting label is “the devil’s advocate,” someone who takes the opposite
side of almost any dispute, for the sake of arguing. This role often helps open up a
discussion, but it may keep system members arguing instead of looking for solutions.
3. Cooperation among system members maintains on conflicts. One person
cannot sustain an interaction. Therefore, the conflict cycle can be interrupted (but
not controlled) by any one person who changes his or her behavior. Healthy systems
are characterized by morphogenesis, or “constructive system-enhancing behaviors
that enable the system to grow, innovate and change” (Olson, Sprenkle, and Russell
1979). Conflict can be changed by one person initiating change or by members decid-
ing together to initiate a change in their structure. A system that maintains conflicts
by avoiding genuine change is called a “morphostatic” system, one characterized by
moves designed to sustain the status quo, or no change.
If you are stuck in a system that does not change, one choice you always have is
to change your own behavior, even if you cannot get others to change. In the Shepherd
family, for instance, one of the five members usually felt left out. The family expecta-
tion was that four people together were enough but five people together were trouble,
since each parent wanted to “take care of” one child. The family was able to change
and make more room on the merry-go-round when Dad began sharing his time with
all three children instead of paying attention to one child at a time.
A system may benefit (in the short term) from keeping a conflict going rather
than resolving it. A work group that bickers might be keeping the manager involved
in their ongoing work. In this way they will not have to take responsibility for pos-
sible failures. An intimate couple may fight over the same old things so they do not
have to confront a more basic dissatisfaction. One couple argued unproductively over
the man’s ongoing comments about traffic hassles. When the woman finally sat down
with him to confront the deeper issues, she said, “I don’t like listening to who cut in
front of you, or bad traffic behavior that happened in the days before. I find myself
avoiding riding with you. This is affecting my enjoyment of being with you.” The
man was able to hear this description, rather than participating in continuing com-
ments about who did what to whom, or not, in traffic.
4. Triangles form in systems when relationships are close and intense (positive or
negative). When one person feels low power, that person tends to bring in another per-
son to bolster the low-power position (Parks 2007). Since the person brought in to build
up the position of the low-power person maintains multiple relationships in the system,
interlocking triangles begin functioning over and over in predictable ways. If these tri-
angles lead to destructive behavior, they are termed toxic triangles (Satir 1972; Hoffman
1981; Minuchin 1974). Triangles will receive deeper coverage later in this chapter.
5. Systems develop rules for conflict that are followed even if they work poorly.
A family might, for example, say, “If we are a happy family, we do not have conflict,”
or “We have polite conflict.” At work there may be a rule that “If you have conflict
with the manager, you will be fired.” Some departments only enact conflict in writ-
ing. Others require conflicts to happen only in meetings, whereas some postpone or
“table” most potential conflicts.
Such system rules often block collaborative conflict. At one time they may have
served the system well. Parents may have decided, for instance, never to fight in front
of the children. When the children were infants, the rule protected them from angry
faces and loud voices. But with children 12 and 16 years old, the rule doesn’t work
well because the children can always tell when Mom and Dad are in a conflict. The
teens do not learn how to manage conflict collaboratively in families.
6. The conflict serves the system in some way. The conflict may be substituting for
intimacy and connection, or may serve as a launching pad for problem solving. Never
assume that members of a system want the conflict to be resolved. They may fear a
vacuum in their interaction if the conflict is no longer serving its particular function.
Although almost everyone in a conflict will say, “Of course we want this over
and done with,” the fact that people keep conflicts going, sometimes for years at
a time, indicates that some system function is served by the conflict. One church
congregation carried on a repetitive conflict at board meetings about the propriety
of using the church buildings for partisan and special interest group meetings. A
third party helped them discover that the debate was a substitute for a subgroup’s
voicing dissatisfaction with the minister’s involvement in social action projects. The
board had been reluctant to confront the minister with their disapproval, so they
always centered the discussion on “use of the building.” The conflict allowed them to
express their disapproval in an indirect way.
The following section presents techniques for identifying exactly how the conflicts
occur inside the system.
Application 7.1 A Brief Systems Analysis
Write a brief paragraph about a group (system) you know inside and out. This may be a family,
social group, work group, blended family, or any other group. Based on the principles just dis-
cussed, answer the following questions:
• What seems to “set off” conflicts? What are predictable trigger events?
• Does anyone have a label that people joke about? How does the label work for that person
and the group?
• Who is the most likely person to change—to not do things the same old way?
• Are there any secret coalitions?
• Are there any expectations that now seem irrational to you, but that people more or less follow?
• What if there were no conflicts? Would anything be lost? What?
You can make use of this system analysis for a larger paper, or for understanding the principles by
discussing them with others in your class.
Complex Conflict Patterns

All recurring conflicts follow patterns—predictable actions of communication and
response. Even when you can’t determine when a pattern “starts,” system regularities
pervade. Often the structure of the conflict is only expressed indirectly or implicitly so
you can’t just ask, “What is the structure of your conflict?” Rather, the structure has to
be derived from inductive approaches such as (1) identifying specific system patterns,
(2) charting conflict triangles, and (3) drawing coalitions. Social complexity theory helps
guide us in this level of analysis. Complexity refers to “a high degree of system interdepen-
dence, which . . . leads to nonlinearity, emergent order creation, other surprising dynam-
ics” (Hazy, Goldstein, and Lichtenstein 2007). Social complexity analyzes networks that
connect individual people. Systems change in surprising and unpredictable ways. Small
changes, such as a morning “huddle” in an organization or initiating a new family ritual,
may create big changes in the overall system (Aula and Siira 2010). As we continue with
ways to analyze conflicts, we will present changes that rely on system changes as well as
individual changes in a system.
Systemwide Patterns
Conflicts never occur in a vacuum. As Parks says, “Relationships never exist apart from
other relationships” (2007, p. 38). If Mary and Marty, just married, are carrying on an
ongoing dispute about finances, it is likely that Mary’s sister and Marty’s buddy, Samuel,
are also involved in the conflict. We are all embedded within wider systems, so whether
a conflict rages out of control or just simmers on the back burner, there are systemwide
forces at work. Everyone affects everyone else.
Just as individuals develop characteristic styles, so do entire systems. Papp, Silverstein,

and Carter (1973) note that in systems theory analyses the following occurs:
∙ Attention is focused on connections and relationships rather than on individual
characteristics.
∙ The whole is considered to be greater than the sum of its parts.
∙ Each part can only be understood in the context of the whole.
∙ A change in any one part will affect every other part.
An example of system change involving sexual harassment in an organization demon-
strates a changing organizational style. In the first description, no change occurs:
1. When sexually harassing behavior occurs, managers ask victims to “just handle it,”
or tease about it. They expect victims of harassment to confront it along without
upsetting the system. In this case, no change occurs because the victim is not sup-
ported. A harassing culture will then be tolerated.
2. Or, the culture of the organization might be influenced by people at the top. The
managers communicate that they themselves do not want this kind of organization,
and they ask that all concerned become involved in remedying the situation. Conver-
sations take place about what is acceptable and what is not. The system changes by
examining harassing behavior as a whole, rather than asking victims or perpetrators
to “handle” it (Marsick, Weaver, and Yorks 2014, 573).
Since everyone is related to everyone else in a system, a manager, parent, or third
party can initiate change by asking What in this system is working? Rather than wait-
ing for a conflict to emerge, you can observe what is working already, and augment and
support what is already effective (Coleman 2014). In a hospital system, a vice president
tried to influence policies about medical waste, asking everyone to limit waste in order
to build a sustainable system. She knew that medical waste in most hospitals was a big
problem, since staff had developed the practice of throwing things away rather than clean-
ing and recycling, which takes more time. The vice president was not noticing the change
she wanted to see. She decided to find the department in the hospital producing the least
waste. She and her team spent time in that department, which happened to be the pediatric
medical ward, to find out what they were doing. Then she asked members of the pediatric
department to lead discussions at other departmental meetings, answering questions, and
encouraging others to adopt different policies. The overall system changed when people
who had already changed their practices engaged colleagues in discussion.
Each communication system has an identity that is more than the sum of the indi-
vidual players. If Sally is aggressive, Tom is obliging, and Linda avoids, simply combining
their individual preferences for conflict will not tell us how they will manage conflict as a
system. The following comments reflect systemwide observations:
The research and development department ducks for cover whenever the bottom line is
mentioned.
They fight like cats and dogs, but they always make up.
That whole group is plastic. They look so sweet, but I wouldn’t trust them farther than I could
throw them.
Unlike individual styles, systemwide styles have not been as widely researched, but
many useful system descriptions have emerged from researchers of family interaction.
Lederer and Jackson’s seminal book Mirages of Marriage (1968) focused attention on
how marital partners act as a unit rather than as individuals. In that book, such phrases
as the “gruesome twosome” and the “heavenly twins” were used to describe marriages
rather than individuals. Family schemata (underlying patterns of behavior) also give some
information about satisfaction in a family. Families that are oriented toward conversation
rather than conformity produce young adults who experience higher levels of satisfaction
(Fowler, Pearson, and Beck 2010; Punyanunt-Carter 2008). Rituals can be considered a
“genre of communication events” (Baxter and Braithwaite 2006, 260); families and cou-
ples that enact satisfying rituals are more likely to maintain good relationships over time
(Fowler et al. 2010).
One marital systems description comes from Cuber and Haroff (1955), who described
marriages as:
1. Conflict-habituated relationships, in which conflict recurs constantly but has little

productive effect; the fighters “don’t get anywhere.”
2. Devitalized marriages, in which the relationship is a hollow shell of what originally
was vibrant and living.
3. Passive-congenial relationships, in which both partners accept a conventional, calm,
ordered marriage that maintains little conflict.
4. Vital relationships, which involve intense mutual sharing of important life events.
5. Total marriages, characterized by the sharing of virtually every aspect of life, fulfill-
ing each other almost completely. (This may be more of an ideal than an observation
of real marriages!)
These descriptions of marital systems help us analyze how conflict is typically

approached in these marriages. What different kinds of marriages have you observed or
participated in?
The impact of conflict itself, as well as the way it is enacted, differs depending on
the relational type. In a conflict-habituated couple, for example, conflict is so common
that it may go almost unnoticed, but it slowly drains the energy that the couple needs for
important growth or conflict. Devitalized partners might experience conflict as being so
devastating that it tears apart the fragile fabric of their shared life. Conflict, after all, is
energy producing and energy draining, and it therefore may destroy a devitalized couple.
Likewise, avoidance in a total relationship would be a distress signal, whereas anything but
avoidance in a passive-congenial relationship might break its implicit rules.
Another system-level description comes from Rands, Levinger, and Mellinger (1981),
who provided a view of conflict resolution types. They found that couples could be seen as
belonging to one of four types:
Type I: Nonintimate-aggressive relationships foster escalation without any corre-

sponding intimacy. Couples are aggressive toward each other without enjoying the
benefit of emotional closeness. Conflict for couples who maintain this pattern is
usually not satisfying, since more energy is drained than is gained.
Type II: Nonintimate-nonaggressive couples lack vitality, intimacy, and escalation.

Thus, they are more satisfied than Type I people, since they do not have to contend
with escalating conflict.
Type III: Intimate-aggressive couples combine intimate behavior with aggressive
acts. Their conflict usually results in intimacy, even though they use aggressive
conflict modes. Their satisfaction depends on whether their conflicts lead to inti-
macy or someone derails the predictable outcome by aggression that is too vicious
or comments that are “below the belt.”
Type IV: Intimate-nonaggressive partners use small amounts of attacking or blaming
behavior, retaining their intimacy in other ways. These couples are satisfied, whether
they are “congenial” (i.e., they avoid full discussion of issues) or “expressive”
(i.e., they confront important issues).
Application 7.2 My Family Patterns
Describe families, a couple relationship, or a living situation you are part of, or have been a part of,
using some of the preceding system pattern descriptions.
• Identify the system itself (family of origin, partnership, marriage, stepfamily, current family,
former family, extended family).
• Who are the members?
• What patterns best describe each family system?
• What are some advantages of each pattern? Disadvantages?
• Choose two or three constructive changes you yourself could put into motion.
• What is the emotional effect on you based on your role in each family system?
In a simpler scheme, Mace (1987), one of the originators of marital enrichment pro-
grams, described conflict patterns in marital systems. He found that couples react to con-
flict in one of four ways. They may avoid it, tolerate it, attempt to fight fairly, or process
it, which involves active listening and telling the emotional as well as factual truth. In your
own conflicts, as an overall pattern do you use avoidance, tolerance, fighting, or process-
ing? These become system styles when they are repeated.
Whatever your systemwide patterns, conflicts in the system can be classified accord-
ing to the following conflict stages (Guerin, Fay, Burden, and Kautto 1987):
Stage I: Members experience a minimal amount of conflict, openly communicate,
and share power. The level of conflict causes no distress for the system.
Stage II: Members experience significant conflict that they see as causing a problem.
Criticism increases, but still there is little power polarization or overt struggle for
control. Usually, one person is pursuing and the other is distancing, and as a system,
they have some difficulty agreeing on how much separateness they should have.
Stage III: Members are in turbulence, experience high intensity, and are moving
toward polarization. They are unable to exchange information accurately, and
frequently criticize each other. Their power struggle is now serious and there is a
life-or-death quality to much of their communication.
Stage IV: Members have lost the ability to work through their conflicts and have
engaged the services of a third party or are dissolving the relationship. They see
the relationship as adversarial and work to enhance their individual bargaining
positions. At this stage, a couple is headed toward disengagement and divorce
(Guerin et al. 1987) or ongoing enmity.
Just as with individual approaches to styles, systemwide descriptions have limitations.
First, conflict can be occurring in the system because the participants disagree about the
type of system they want. One partner may want to be enmeshed, involving the other in
all decisions, whereas the other may want more disengagement. In such cases, individual
behaviors indicate a struggle with the definition of the system as a whole. Rather than
being “nonintimate-aggressive,” the system may reflect a struggle in process.
When people work toward defining who they will be together, the rules that shape
their interaction may be in flux. Some of the typologies discussed in the previous sec-
tion may have given you the impression that conflict patterns are fixed. As Christakis and
Fowler note, “The networks we create have lives of their own. They grow, change, repro-
duce and die” (2009, p. 289).
Sharon and Don, for example, are the parents of three children who are entering their
teens. In the past, the family could be described as “nonintimate-nonaggressive.” Now that
the children are growing up, the parents are rediscovering their intimacy with each other,
which results in confusion in the family interactions, since the children are used to being
the center of attention. No system description adequately reflects the complexity the family
experiences during transition.
Just as with individual styles, various system patterns can be functional or not, depend-
ing on the needs of the situation. Not all groups are automatically better off with a highly
processed, or “intimate-nonaggressive,” style all the time. Relationships go through cycles
of change on various dimensions. Mutual avoidance of conflict may be appropriate, for
instance, if a remarried couple is determined to avoid the tense escalatory behavior of their
first marriages. Avoidance may not continue to work for this couple for 10 years, but it may
serve their goals well at first, as they are building trust and affection for each other.
Micro-level Analysis of Conflict Systems

When you go on a car trip to visit a friend, you need two levels of maps—one showing
the two states you are motoring across and another showing the streets in Pittsburgh,
where your friend lives. The same kind of information is needed in your conflicts—overall
systemwide views and also maps or descriptions of the smaller details. Several approaches
to the micro-level analysis of your conflicts will be useful: describing triangles, coalitions,
interaction rules, and microevents.
Conflict Triangles
If you experience a conflict with John and you talk to Julia about it, you are participating
in a conflict triangle. Conflict triangles occur frequently (Dallos and Vetere 2011). Why
triangles?2 When people perceive that they are the low-power person in a conflict, their
2
Several researchers and practitioners have noted that the triangle is the basic unit of analysis for
conflict communication (Hoffman 1981; Minuchin 1974; Satir 1972; Wilmot 1987).
typical response is to try to form a coalition with another person. That person may indeed
bolster their power, but the addition of the third person forms a triangle. “Three’s a crowd”
is a cultural saying based on sound communication theory. Three people find it difficult to
maintain balance in a conflicted relationship. Usually they become structured as a “dyad
plus one” (Wilmot 1987). Communication triangles prove unstable—the power will flow
to two of the people, leaving one person out.
Let’s take a typical workplace situation. Terry is the manager; Josh and Miranda both
report to him. Josh criticizes Miranda in front of other colleagues, resorting to Terry fre-
quently to complain about the “quality of her work.” Miranda, on the other hand, criticizes
how Marty treats her—interrupting her in meetings and always second-guessing her work.
She also hears from Terry that Josh “is not pleased with the quality of your work.” Every-
one is trapped—Terry says, “Why can’t they just get along?” Josh says, “Her quality of
work is subpar,” and Miranda says, “He doesn’t treat me professionally.” When Josh and
Miranda are together (without Terry) they both say, “He is so hands off he doesn’t solve
any problems—he just keeps pushing the issue back to us.” The following triangle illus-
trates the recurring conflicts. The line with dashes indicates strain or conflict.
Terry
Josh Miranda
Since there is ongoing conflict, the triangle is inherently unstable—Terry might move
closer to Josh, or spend lunch hours with Miranda, thus bringing instability to the system.
In any triangle, a shift in any degree of closeness affects the other participant.
Triangles can also be stable. In a relationship with very little conflict, three may
be just fine, and even fun. For instance, Helen is a university senior. She is an honors
student who enjoys living off campus with her closest friend, Jean. Jean and Helen have
known each other since high school, and have discovered that their eating habits, how
they like to keep up their two-bedroom apartment, their study times and habits, and their
sense of fun and frivolity are very similar. Both enjoy solitary time as well as time with
each other and friends. Recently Jean began spending a lot of time with her boyfriend,
Jeff. For a while, Jeff stayed at Helen and Jean’s apartment often, hanging out, studying,
and just “living.” Helen talked to Jean about this, saying that she felt slightly intruded
upon and wished for more time alone or just with Jean in the apartment. Since Helen and
Jean had already agreed to this basic principle, “the apartment is for us,” Jean was not
upset. She began to spend more time at Jeff’s. Now Helen feels lonely some of the time,
but she understands Jean’s choices.
Are Jean, Helen, and Jeff in a toxic triangle? The word toxic (Satir 1972) was first
applied to relationships that are poisonous, dangerous, and potentially devastating to the
relationship. Clearly Helen and Jean are not in a toxic triangle—they have developed
direct, straightforward communication that keeps them out of a toxic situation. Helen may
be lonely, but she doesn’t blame Jean for spending time with Jeff and she knows they are
still friends. This is an example of a normal, healthy communication style that does not
result in a toxic triangle.
Of course, people aren’t always so skilled or fortunate: When conflict erupts, the sys-
tem tends to cluster into triangles. For example, Tom and Mary are a couple in their second
marriages. Tom has a daughter, Susan, age 7, and Mary has a son, Brian, age 6. Tom’s first
wife, Brenda, lives in the same town. Mary’s first husband, Sam, lives in another state. The
current conflict can be described like this:
Susan
Tom Brenda
Application 7.3 A Conflict Triangle

Tom and Mary have a close and usually constructive relationship. They learned from their unhappy
first marriages to talk problems out and to be direct and honest (as well as respectful, kind, and
clear). But they have some problems. Tom and his former wife, Brenda, do not agree with the
parenting plan they agreed to, with a court-appointed mediator’s help, 2 years before. Since
they remained at an impasse, the mediator sent the parenting plan to a court-appointed “special
master,” or arbitrator, who recommended a plan to the judge. Tom and Brenda argue via phone
and e-mail about exceptions to the “one week with each one” plan. They argue about timing of
vacations and holiday visits. Unfortunately, they draw Susan into their conflict, sending messages
through her and notes back and forth through Susan. An example would be a note Brenda sent
Tom through Susan that said, “Susan will be spending Thanksgiving at my house because she told
(continued)
me that is what she wants to do. Therefore, I will pick her up Wednesday at 4:00.” You can draw
the toxic triangle of these three people like this:
High- and low-power people are marked with a plus (+) or minus (−). Susan, of course, is the
child caught in the middle and has little power in the current toxic triangle.
Susan
(−)
Tom Brenda
(+) (+)
One time Mary, Susan’s stepmother, found Susan crying at home. Susan and Mary have a
good, warm relationship. Susan said, “I hate this. Mom and Dad fight all the time and I can’t do
anything about it. I just want to do what the judge said because somebody is always mad at me.”
Whether she was aware of it or not, Susan needed a friend, an ally—Mary.
Allies can be drawn this way:
( )
Mary knows she cannot talk directly with Brenda, having tried that communication strategy
before. But Mary is tired of being ineffective and watching the ongoing conflict. She has been an
isolate. A diagram of the conflict so far might look like this. Allies are drawn with parentheses
around the arrow connecting their communication bond:
Both parents
Mary Susan/child
( )
(continued)
You pick up the conflict from here. In a small group, draw potential new triangles, involving
Mary, Susan, Tom, and Brenda. Remember also that Brian, Mary’s son, might have some input
here. Propose some conflict resolution strategies, drawing the new triangles. One example
might be that Mary decides to talk with Tom about Susan’s distress, proposing that Tom talk
directly to Brenda, leaving Susan out of any communication. Susan is in the room. How would
that triangle look?
The reason to analyze toxic triangles is to discover where the ongoing conflict lies. The goal
of triangle analysis is to make toxic triangles into direct, collaborative communication interactions.
These new dyads would be drawn like this:
Susan
( (
Tom ( ( Brenda
+ +
Susan
(
(Isolate)
Tom ( o
Brenda Mary
Examples of Constructive Dyads
Susan Mary
Tom Brenda
Susan (Family advocate, i.e.,

Aunt Nancy)
Mary Tom
Diagramming toxic triangles allows you to understand the “stuck places” of the con-
flict patterns. The goal of triangle analysis is to remove the toxic triangles and make them
into direct dyadic communication. This strategy may not resolve all conflicts, but you will
take steps toward removing intractable conflicts if you pay attention to toxic triangles.
In organizations, a leader can openly diagram triangles of “failed communication”
on a whiteboard at a staff meeting. Managers and team leaders use this technique effec-
tively. Even without outside intervention, leaders in the organization can say, “We have
some failed communication strategies going on. Let’s draw them, and brainstorm ways to
get ourselves out of the stuck tangle of triangles.” When this communication strategy is
used without blame, lights go on and people begin to realize why they are in conflict and
what they might do about it. Direct communication is usually the constructive strategy
of choice. People form triangles when they feel low power. People feel more empowered
when communication is direct.
Drawing Coalitions—Who Is In, Who Is Out?

While analysis of triangles can be part of the systemwide picture, other network patterns
also emerge. A coalition forms when some are closer to each other than they are to others.
A private bond emerges. For example, in a family, you may be the “outsider,” the last to hear
of important family events. At work, there may be two groups, those who like the supervisor
and those who do not. In a large organization, some departments join together every time
there is a decision; they exclude other departments. When someone is in a coalition, they
include select people in the information flow and not others. That communication is often
hidden in some way. Figure 7.1 is a simple diagram showing one possible set of coalitions.
When two people are “coalesced,” they orient to one another, share more informa-
tion, and feel closer than to others. When people feel excluded, they call the other people’s
coalitions “cliques.” As you can see from the Williams family diagram, mom and son Seth
are close, as are dad and daughter, Rachel. And son #2, Tom, is the “isolate”—the one who
is out of the loop with others.
Coalitions also form in workplaces. Here are two examples to illustrate some of the
diverse patterns that develop. In Figure 7.2, the executive director has a close relationship
with four of her staff, and the other four form a coalition “against” the original group.
Figure 7.1 Coalitions in the Williams Family
Beth (mom) Randy (dad)
Seth (son) Rachel (daughter) Tom (son)

Figure 7.2 Coalitions With/Against the Boss
Boss
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Even without knowing any of the people involved, you can predict the system dynam-
ics. In this case, the executive director shared a close bond with one person, and also with
about one-half of the staff. The remainder of the professional staff, feeling excluded by
the director, formed their own countercoalition. Whatever one group wanted, the other
resisted, and vice versa. Over time, the coalitions became so rigid that outside help was
requested.
Drawing coalitions gives an overall view of the system—who is in, who is out, who is
closest to whom, and who has the most power. In all organizations and families with more
than three members, coalitions exist. As the members go about their relating, they tend to
“cluster” their communication within the overall network (Parks 2007):
∙ A parent talks more to one child than to the other.
∙ One group of elementary schoolteachers in an elementary school forms into two
groups—smokers and nonsmokers.
∙ Half a group of community college faculty give allegiance to the academic vice
president while the other half allies itself with the president.
People form coalitions in order to (1) share topic information, (2) get support and
understanding, (3) have a sense of belonging, and (4) gain power. Thus, coalition forma-
tion is a natural process in all families and organizations—people tend to cluster together
(and apart). In all the workplaces and families where we have worked as change agents,
without exception, members are in coalitions.
Recall from Chapter 2 the explanation of the differing perspectives that people use
in conflicts. In an ongoing dispute, people disagree with almost everything the other
expresses. Yet, surprisingly, when asked to draw coalitions, they reproduce almost the
same diagram. Coalitions are so powerful that all the system members know about them
and respond to them. We all know at each point in time who’s in and who’s out, who is
close, and who feels far apart.
Once we are in a coalition (or sometimes left out of one), we tend to feel justified in
being “in the group” or “not in the group.” If we are central we feel important. If we are
isolated, we see ourselves as special or different from the others. One administrative assis-
tant in an office of psychologists felt (and was) excluded by the other two assistants.
She began to talk to the psychologists in the office about the assistants, saying
polite but negative things about them. Soon, she was going to lunch with several of the
psychologists. The two other assistants then began to give her more of the tedious billing
work, saying, “If she has so much time on her hands, she can help out more.”
Once coalitions form, they become self-justifying. In a family, as a parent and child form
a close bond talking about the errant parent, for example, the bond becomes self-reinforcing.
As we communicate with a coalition partner, we tend to justify the exclusion of others by
stressing how similar we are to our coalition partners. We extend the in-group/out-group
phenomenon. As the coalition strengthens, the members (1) stress their similarities to one
another, (2) highlight their dissimilarities to those not in the coalition, and (3) accelerate
these differences throughout time. Each coalition forms its own reward structure, perceptu-
ally driving the members farther and farther from the “others.” Similarly, system isolates
justify their exclusion. The teenage child or estranged parent isolated from the family and
the lonely employee adopt the stance of, “I didn’t want to be part of your group anyway.”
Isolates, after a certain point in time, resist joining and take pleasure in being “different.”
Whether the isolate is the loner who likes to work the night shift, the estranged teenager, or
the only female employee, they provide for their own internal support system and decline
offers to merge with the others. In the workplace, isolates leave at twice the rate and perform
worse than those centrally located (Feeley, Moon, Koxey, and Slowe 2010).
Coalitions become toxic when they become so tight that the groups get locked
into destructive conflict with one another. In the eyes of coalition participants, they
are “friends” while the people in the other group are “forming cliques.” The coalitions,
because of their rigidity and heavy boundaries, begin causing problems for the system.
The mother–daughter dyad excludes father so that he gives up on having influence in the
family and acts out even more isolating behavior. The organization divides into voting
blocks and power plays, with each group vying to outdo the other group on policy issues.
Each expression of communication rigidity reinforces the boundaries already existing and
produces more and more perceptual distortion—accelerating the negative behavior and
inaccurate meta-perceptions of the other group. Rather than talking to others, each group
spins off and takes action based on their guesses about the others’ intentions—which they
usually see as being negative.
Communication patterns both reflect and create the difficulties. People withhold
information, make overt power plays, act in competitive ways, or avoid the others alto-
gether. They stop solving problems. Communication exchanges become more toxic and
damaging, with each discussion producing more distrust, hostility, and discord. In this
sense, coalitions serve to scapegoat other individuals or coalitions. Inclusion and exclusion
remain two of the most powerful human forces in social life.
A good way to “get a picture of a conflict” is to draw the coalesced, partly private,
pairings. In one romantic situation, Jane has separated from her husband, Alan. She has
met a man at work and is flirting with him and considering a relationship with him. Jane
and Noah (the new man) talk about the problems Jane has with Alan. Alan, however, is iso-
lated. He talks with Jane, but much of the truth of her emotional life is hidden from him. As
Alan and Jane enter couples counseling, the counselor challenges Jane, in a private session,
to stop telling Noah her complaints about Alan and, instead, to tell Alan. If she does that,
she will soften the coalition that further estranges her from Alan. If she does not, she will
almost certainly lose her relationship with Alan. Jane still has the choice not to return to
Alan; keeping the coalition with Noah ensures that she will stay separated. Her closeness
with Noah is self-reinforcing; her distance with Alan is self-reinforcing.
You can also see self-reinforcing patterns by looking at heavy communicators—

those who are central to passing and receiving messages from network members. Heavy
communicators typically (1) resist being moved out of that central role and (2) at the same
time complain about the “overwork” involved in keeping the system happy. Students in
a typical college classroom report that about 85% of the time mother is a heavy com-
municator in the family. In an organization, if someone is in a central role, he or she will
complain about others’ apathy and lack of involvement—while maintaining the central
role at all cost.
Organizational and family isolates also engage in self-reinforcing patterns. If there
is an isolate, one member who is “out” compared to the others, the isolate (1) complains
about the decisions or personalities of central people yet (2) resists coming closer to the
center of communication flow. Both the isolate and the central members cooperate to keep
him or her out. In the community college we mentioned earlier, the academic vice presi-
dent was accused by half of the faculty of being “weak.”
Meanwhile, every time this group disagreed with one of his decisions, they went “over
his head” to the president, undercutting him and reinforcing his “weakness.” Similarly,
in a family, a grandparent might be concerned that a son is not a “good parent” to the
grandchildren, yet the grandparent criticizes the son as a parent, and undermines the son’s
confidence in being a parent.
Softening coalitions lessen their destructive impact. In a women’s group formed to
read fiction and discuss contemporary books, several members have begun attending errat-
ically. Marcy and Tina talk with each other about how disgusted they are with the overly
specialized and obscure fiction some of the natural leaders choose. Ruth and Jane talk with
each other, and sometimes with Marcy and Tina, about how the group is becoming just a
showcase for the most talkative leaders. By coalescing and isolating themselves, they lose
influence in the group, lessening their interdependence on the group, and creating uncer-
tainty in the other members. The solution? Each woman would say to the whole group (and
those she usually doesn’t talk to!) that her preferences aren’t getting much regard, or each
woman would make suggestions about what she’d like to see the group read. One could
offer to lead a book discussion. More involvement in the group and less involvement in the
coalitions will probably solve the immediate problem.
Application 7.4 Draw Two Systems
For two systems you know well (your family, your workplace, your living situation, any outside
group such as church, sports, or reading group), draw the coalitions, isolates, and lines of commu-
nication for these two systems. Label the coalitions with a title, including the initials of each person
in the coalition. Remember that some people may be in more than one coalition. Draw lines that
indicate whether communication is interrupted or flows easily between the coalitions. Now, show
your drawing to someone else, without telling him or her the specific content. Ask the other to
(1) find similarities and differences in your role in the two systems, (2) specify the actions of all the
players keeping the system going, and (3) list what communication problems are created by these
patterns. Then, tell your partner how accurate or inaccurate he or she is.
Interaction Rules
You have undoubtedly experienced conflicts in which you wanted to say, “Here we go again.
Same song, 14th verse.” Sometimes no matter what content is being discussed, the outcome
is the same. The same people collude together, the same people are left out, and the same
indirect strategies are used (e.g., “forgetting,” avoiding the issue, and putting off a decision
until something must be done). As we have seen, repetitive, unsatisfactory conflicts often
operate from a set of unstated but very powerful rules that limit genuine change.
“Rules” describe the underlying communication structure of the interaction. Under-
lying rules are like the structure of a language. Usually, no one person dictates the rules.
Instead, the rules guide behavior in more subtle ways. They are “the way things are done” in
a family, a business, a department, or a group of friends. A more precise definition of a rule
is that it is “a followable prescription that indicates what behavior is obligated, preferred, or
prohibited in certain contexts” (Shimanoff 1980, 57). In popular language, people learn the
“rules of engagement.”
Usually the rules of communication remain implicit. If you begin to describe the rules,
however, you bring them to the surface, and then they can be changed. The following are
some examples of rules that conform to the above definition. Keep in mind that people
can sometimes tell you the underlying rules if you interview them, but the rules are never
printed and posted. Those are different kinds of rules.
∙ Rules are prescriptions for behavior stated in the following form:
“When in context X, Y must/must not occur.”
“When Father shows sadness or anger, Mother must soothe him.”
“When the program director decides to assign a case to a counselor, the coun-
selor must accept the case or convince the program director to reassign it.”
∙ Rules are stated in prescriptive, not evaluative, language. They focus on communica-
tion behavior:
“When brother and sister fight, Dad must intervene to stop it,” not “Dad feels
responsible for stopping brother and sister’s fights even though they can handle
them without interference” (this is interpretive and evaluative).
(In an abusive system) “When Andy bullies and hits his sister, Jen, Jen must
handle it herself and not bother Mom with tattling.”
Rules against knowing the rules abound. People must follow the rules but can’t say
what they are. For that reason, listing rules for interaction may not be easy. But you can
elicit system rules from conflict parties by following these steps:
1. List explicit and implicit rules that prescribe your own and others’ behavior in
conflicts.
2. If you have trouble thinking of rules for your system, think of times when the
rule was broken. How did you know the rule was broken? How was the violation
communicated? Write about the prescription that became obvious upon breaking
the rule.
3. Make sure you generate rules for both behavior that must and behavior that must not
be performed.
4. Go back over your list. Make each rule simple and prescriptive. Write rules even for
“obvious” communication patterns. They may prove to be important possibilities for
change.
Example:
When new staff members attend the staff meeting, they must not express opinions
unless they have a sponsor who is an older staff member.
5. Code each rule as to the following:
a. Whose rule is it?
b. What keeps the rule going?
c. Who enforces the rule?
d. Who breaks the rule?
e. What function does the rule serve?
6. Discuss how the rules help or harm the productive management of conflict. Make
decisions for change.
Example:
Old rule—When Dad is angry at younger brother, older brother must protect younger
brother from Dad’s disapproval.
Result—Older brother and Dad engage in conflict often, reducing effect of the
protection (a toxic triangle).
New rule—When Dad and younger brother get into a conflict, they must talk about
their conflicts without older brother (a new affiliation).
Application 7.5 Discover Your Rules of Interaction
Choose any of the above steps for your practice. Take 10 minutes or so, and see if you can follow
the suggestions. Focus on one particular relationship. Think about and write some of the rules that
define that relationship. Check with others to see if you understand the way rules are written.
Microevents
Microevents are “repetitive loops of observable interpersonal behaviors . . . with a redun-
dant outcome” (Metcoff and Whitaker 1982, 253). Although similar to rules, microevents
are descriptive, not prescriptive, of behavior. They are clusters of behaviors organized
into structurally repetitive episodes. In simpler, nontechnical terms, microevents are those
small pictures that give a lot of clues about the bigger picture. An outsider could speculate
about ongoing relationships based on what she or he sees in a 5- or 10-minute interaction.
As you read in Chapter 2, some couples researchers can predict who will divorce based on
very brief interactions.
Not every short interaction is a microevent. Microevents are interactions that give
information about other interactions. For instance, your new boyfriend/girlfriend might
visit your parents’ home with you. After one dinner, the new partner might ask you, “Does
your dad always add to whatever you say, and try to kind of improve it? It seems like he’s
always teaching you. And your mom seems like she’s the one who asks questions. Is that
the way it usually is?”
Perhaps the clearest keys to the nature of an underlying structure are the “substitut-
able communication events that reveal the structure” (Metcoff and Whitaker 1982, 258).
Metcoff and Whitaker provide the following example of such repeatability:
scratched his ear
Every time the husband rubbed his nose during
tapped his right foot
an argument with his wife, one of the children
ask to go to the bathroom

would slap a sibling so that the
begin to cry
husband-wife dispute was never resolved. (258–259)
The implicit, unstated structure underlying these repetitive conflicts can be summarized as
follows: “When the husband and wife initiate a conflict, one of the children makes a move
to gain their attention, and the husband-wife conflict is not resolved” (259). Each system
will display a different structure underlying the observable conflict. The microevent serves
to define the conflict because it “embodies themes of stability and change within the fam-
ily system” (263).
Once the underlying structure is decoded, one can begin to predict where, when, or
how conflict will erupt. Emily and Gordon are a married couple in their 60s whose chil-
dren are all grown and living elsewhere. Before each vacation, Gordon decides where they
should go, then tries to persuade Emily of the wisdom of his choice. Emily won’t agree to
go, but neither will she say no. Then, the night before the trip, Gordon stays up most of the
night packing, and the next day, Emily reluctantly goes with him. Their repetitive conflicts
are structured in the following manner:
1. He always initiates.
2. She is always convinced to go (reluctantly).
3. There is no discussion of their relationship; all issues are handled through content.
4. Neither receives positive results from their respective stances.
5. Neither one can solve or escape the conflict.
Their next conflict, over whether, when, and where to go for Christmas, will be based
on a similar structure. One can begin decoding the structure underlying a microevent by
focusing on these questions:
Application 7.6 Understanding Your Microevent
1. Who initiates and in what way?

2. Who responds and in what way?
3. Who else is present but is not identified as a party to the conflict?
(continued)
Application 7.6 Understanding Your Microevent
4. Does anyone “speak for” someone else? If so, does this keep the participants embroiled
in the conflict?
5. If there were no conflict, what would be missing?
a. Who would not be connecting with whom?
b. How would the parties structure their time?
c. Would conflicts continue with new parties entering into the fray?
6. Is the conflict serving to fill emotional space so other parties cannot fight?
The communication patterns created in a conflict often cycle back and imprison the
players. For example, Beverly went through a divorce 2 months ago; now her son Randy
is having difficulty at school. At least twice a week, Beverly and Randy struggle over his
poor work in the fifth grade. He has been labeled a “troublemaker” at school and has been
sent home from school three times in the last month. This is embarrassing for Beverly;
she also gets very angry at Randy for his “stupid behavior.” The repetitive microevent that
Beverly and Randy enact has the following features:
1. Beverly initiates each conflict by being distressed about Randy’s school performance
or disruptive behavior at school.
2. Randy responds by being sullen, pretending he is deaf and can’t hear requests, and
withdrawing.
3. The unemployed older brother is present in the house but serves as a bystander.
4. Randy and Beverly are both isolated parties—neither has anyone to come to his or
her aid during the conflict.
5. Aside from the conflict, mother and son have few common interests. Beverly can’t
think of things that might be interesting for the two of them to do together. This
recurring conflict both illustrates and crystallizes the family structure.
The following are some ways you can discover and describe microevents:
1. Act as a qualitative researcher who uses observation and interviewing to determine

patterns.
2. Obtain a professional third party (consultant, mediator, or therapist) description of
common conflicts.
3. Keep a journal of conflict episodes that seem repetitive—those that have a “here we
go again” theme.
4. Ask newcomers to a system, such as new employees, new family members, or new
committee members, to describe what they have experienced so far.
Comprehensive Guides
You can systematically analyze your conflicts by using these two comprehensive assess-
ment guides. This will be helpful if your instructor asks you to write a comprehensive
conflict analysis. You will also find the guides helpful if you work or volunteer as a third
party intervention agent. Third party conflict resolution will be presented in the next two
chapters. Analysis must precede intervention.
Conflict Assessment Guide

The Conflict Assessment Guide will help you map all of the central elements of your conflict.
I. Nature of the Conflict
A. What are the “triggering events” that brought this conflict into mutual
awareness?
B. What is the historical context of this conflict in terms of (1) the ongoing rela-
tionship between the parties and (2) other, external events within which this
conflict is embedded?
C. Do the parties have assumptions about conflict that are discernable by their
choices of conflict metaphors, patterns of behavior, or clear expressions of
their attitudes about conflict?
D. Conflict elements:
1. How is the struggle expressed by each party?
2. What are the perceived incompatible goals?
3. What are the perceived scarce resources?
4. In what ways are the parties interdependent? How are they interfering with
one another? How are they cooperating to keep the conflict in motion?
E. Has the conflict vacillated between productive and destructive phases? If so,
which elements were transformed during the productive cycles? Which ele-
ments might be transformed by creative solutions to the conflict?
II. Orientation to the Conflict
A. What attitudes toward conflict do participants seem to hold?
B. Do they perceive conflict as positive, negative, or neutral? How can you tell?
C. What metaphoric images do conflict participants use? What metaphors might
you use to describe the conflict?
D. What is the cultural background of the participants? What is the cultural con-
text in which the conflict takes place?
E. How might gender roles, limitations, and expectations be operating in this
conflict?
III. Interests and Goals
A. How do the parties clarify their goals? Do they phrase them in individualistic
or systemic terms?
B. What does each party think the other’s goals are? Are they similar or dissimi-
lar to the perceptions of self-goals?
C. How have the goals been altered from the beginning of the conflict to the
present? In what ways are the prospective, transactive, and retrospective goals
similar or dissimilar?
D. What are the topic, relational, identity, and process goals?

E. How do the TRIP goals overlap with one another?
F. Which goals seem to be primary at different stages of the dispute?
G. Are the conflict parties “specializing” in one type or the other?
H. Are the identity and relational issues the “drivers” of this dispute?
I. Are any of the goals emerging in different forms?
J. How do the goals shift during the prospective, transactive, and retrospective
phases?
IV. Power
A. What attitudes about their own and the other’s power does each party have?
Do they talk openly about power, or is it not discussed?
B. What do the parties see as their own and the other’s dependencies on one
another? As an external observer, can you classify some dependencies that
they do not list?
C. What power currencies do the parties see themselves and the other
possessing?
D. From an external perspective, what power currencies of which the partici-
pants are not aware seem to be operating?
E. In what ways do the parties disagree on the balance of power between them?
Do they underestimate their own or the other’s influence?
F. What impact does each party’s assessment of power have on subsequent
choices in the conflict?
G. What evidence of destructive “power balancing” occurs?
H. In what ways do observers of the conflict agree and disagree with the parties’
assessments of their power?
I. What are some unused sources of power that are present?
V. Styles
A. What individual styles did each party use? Use the five-style, dual-concern
description of styles.
B. How did the individual styles change during the course of the conflict?
C. How did the parties perceive the other’s style?
D. In what way did a party’s style reinforce the choices the other party made as
the conflict progressed?
E. Were the style choices primarily symmetrical or complementary?
F. From an external perspective, what were the advantages and disadvantages of
each style within this particular conflict?
G. Can the overall system be characterized as having a predominant style? What
do the participants say about the relationship as a whole?
H. Do the participants appear to strategize about their conflict choices or remain
spontaneous?
I. How does each party view the other’s strategizing?
J. What are the tactical options used by both parties?
K. Do the tactical options classify primarily into avoidance, dominating, or
collaboration?
L. How are the participants’ tactics mutually impacting on the others’ choices?
VI. Conflict and Emotions

A. In your situation, what approaches to change have you utilized or are you
contemplating? How effective are these approaches?
B. Choose several emotions that the parties have expressed in this conflict. What
are the functions of these emotions? How are they mitigated or moderated?
Use the circumplex model to describe the emotions.
C. What can you learn about emotions in this particular conflict? Do the feelings
cluster around “needs being met” or “needs not being met”?
D. What emotions are seldom expressed? What is the result?
E. Discuss how parties might use positive emotions to help in this particular
conflict.
F. In this conflict, has anyone strayed out of the “zone of effectiveness”? How?
What have you or might you do about this?
G. How is mindfulness being used/not used in this conflict?
VII. Analyzing Interactions and Overall Patterns
A. What system dynamics characterize this conflict?
B. What rules of repetitive patterns characterize this conflict?
C. What triangles, coalition, and microevents best characterize the conflict?
D. How destructive is the tone of this conflict?
VIII. Attempted Solutions
A. What options have been explored for managing the conflict?
B. Have attempted solutions become part of the problem?
C. Have third parties been brought into the conflict? If so, what roles did they
play and what was the impact of their involvement?
D. Is this conflict a repetitive one, with attempted solutions providing temporary
change but with the overall pattern remaining unchanged? If so, what is that
overall pattern?
E. Can you identify categories of solutions that have not been tried?
IX. Negotiation
A. Are the parties able to negotiate with one another? Why or why not?
B. What is done to equalize power?
C. Do the parties use primarily dominating tactics, collaborative tactics, or some
combination?
D. Were the parties able to reach agreements that are durable?
X. Forgiveness and Reconciliation
A. In this conflict, are parties working toward forgiveness or reconciliation?
Clearly state which in terms of the chapter’s information on the difference
between the two.
B. In this conflict, what power imbalances should be addressed? How are parties
doing/not doing that?
C. For you, is forgiveness a decision or a process? Use information in the
chapter to discuss your position.
D. In what way is your situation calling for intrapersonal or interpersonal
forgiveness, or both?
E. Discuss the problems of apology in this conflict.

F. What lessons from other cultures might inform your study of your own conflict?
You can use the Conflict Assessment Guide for your own conflicts and also use it
when asking others about their conflicts. One other overall approach is the Difficult
Conversations Guide. This second assessment guide brings forth the narratives (stories)
that conflict parties tell themselves and others. It is especially useful for focusing on the
emotional component.
Difficult Conversations Guide

Colleagues associated with the Harvard Negotiation Project (Stone, Patton, and Heen
1999) wrote an excellent book, Difficult Conversations, that explores what they call the
three conversations. These “conversations” help clarify the structure of a conflict by focus-
ing on the stories people tell themselves and others, the difference between intention and
impact, and the way one’s identity needs to be restored after an important conflict. The
authors of the book make it very clear that you should ask yourself important questions
before undertaking a difficult conversation with another person. You prepare for the con-
versation by assessing the following “stories.” If you decide to use this approach for an
analysis paper, read Difficult Conversations as an additional resource to this text.
I. What Happened? What Is My Story?
A. What were my intentions?
B. What do I think the other’s intentions were?
C. What did I contribute to the problem? (Specifically describe your behavior as
well as your feelings and attributions.)
II. What Happened? What Is the Other’s Story?
A. What was the impact on me?
B. What impact did I have on the other?
C. What did the other person contribute to the problem?
III. The Feelings Conversation: My Story
A. What feelings underlie my attributions and judgments (e.g., angry, frustrated,
disappointed, hurt, guilty, embarrassed, ashamed, grateful, sad)?
B. What do I need or want in order to feel differently in the future?
IV. The Feelings Conversations: The Other’s Story
A. What feelings underlie the other’s attributions and judgments about me?
B. What information can I get or do I have about this question?
C. What does the other person need to feel differently in the future?
V. The Identity Conversation
A. How has what happened affected my identity?
B. How has what happened affected my sense of influence over the situation?
C. What do I need to do to restore my sense of identity?
D. How has what happened affected the other’s identity?
E. How has what happened affected the other’s sense of influence over the
situation?
F. What does the other need to restore his/her sense of identity?
Summary
Conflicts are often perplexing to all participants. coalitions provide graphic, visual information about
Usually, however, an interpersonal conflict is system dynamics. One also can focus on system
operating as a system of relations, complete with rules—the prescriptions for what one ought to do in
repetitive behavior, rules, and other identifiable a given situation. Microevents are observable, recur-
dynamics. Systems theory helps make sense of ring patterns of behavior that can be analyzed for
confusing conflicts. Many possible ways to analyze underlying conflict structure. Finally, the Conflict
conflict patterns are discussed in this chapter. In Assessment Guide and the Difficult Conversations
addition, several schemas are presented to help you Guide are two overall assessment tools to uncover
describe a system. Charting triangles and drawing the dynamics of specific conflicts.
Key Terms
system dynamics patterning 231 coalition 244
(macro level) 230 circular causality 232 system isolates 246
micro level 230 descriptive language 232 heavy communicator 247
self-fulfilling prophecies 230 morphogenesis 233 system rules 248
macro-level analysis 231 conflict triangle 239 Conflict Assessment Guide 252
wholeness 231 toxic triangle 241 Difficult Conversations
organization 231 isolate 242 Guide 255
Review Questions
1. Why would you want to map a conflict? 9. How can you use a coalition diagram to predict
2. Describe systems theory. future conflicts?
3. What are the principles of system theory? 10. Describe the roles of the heavy communicator
4. What are the advantages of identifying conflict and the isolate.
patterns? 11. What are the characteristics of a healthy system?
5. What are five types of system patterns that 12. Define system rules, including personal
occur in marriages? examples.
6. What are the four stages of conflict? 13. What are the questions to ask about system
7. Define coalitions, giving an example from rules?
your personal life and school. 14. Define microevents and give a specific exam-
8. Why do people form coalitions? ple of one from your life.
Chapter 8
Interpersonal Negotiation
Negotiation in Everyday Life

You may not think of yourself as a “negotiator.” The word negotiation may bring to mind
labor and management representatives negotiating a work contract, or diplomats meeting
with great formality to resolve national disputes.
Negotiation simply means to settle a dispute by discussion and mutual agreement.
Negotiation covers two approaches: (l) “All efforts by individual disputants to resolve con-
flicts for themselves, without any third-party interventions” (Bendersky 2003, 645), and
(2) the process by which a third party assists primary parties in the conflict to settle their
disputes. What is new is that in negotiation, the focus shifts to argument, persuasion, and
specific conflict strategies involving bargaining. Negotiation provides a process for con-
flict resolution when the topic, relationship, identity, and process issues rise in importance
in a conflict. The outcome of negotiation can be (a) problem resolution, (b) partial resolu-
tion, or (b) impasse. Additionally, an outcome of negotiation can be an improved relation-
ship as long as the decisions reached are satisfactory.
Survey reports show that managing conflict on one’s own is preferable to most parties
than asking for third-party assistance (Jameson et al. 2009). Asking for or being required
to seek third-party help may stigmatize the parties. One engineer we worked with said
coming to a communication coach’s office (and this was only for an interview!) felt like
“being called to the principal’s office.” People report greater satisfaction with the deci-
sion outcomes when they negotiate on their own, but less emotional resolution. “Surface
settlements often lead to silence, anger, and sullen acceptance” (Jameson et al. 2009). This
outcome suggests that negotiation should also deal with emotional realities for permanent
change (transformation) to occur. Topic-only negotiations may be short-term, satisfactory
solutions for much more complex issues that will arise later. For this reason, negotiation
is no different than any other form of conflict resolution we have presented in this book.
All the layers of conflict issues (TRIP concerns) matter, no matter what the form of con-
flict resolution is that is used. Negotiation is just as embedded in emotional realities as
any other form—but emotion may be excluded from the table. Excluding feelings seldom
works for long.
Because conflicts arise in every facet of life, negotiation can be employed far
beyond purchasing a car or settling the terms of a new job. Negotiation fundamentally
rests on interpersonal skills (Lewicki and Tomlinson 2014). Negotiation can be either
competitive (“I want my goals met and I don’t care about yours”) or integrative (“We
have to reach a mutually satisfying conclusion”). Many negotiations are neither formally
structured, repeated, nor contain financial or material outcomes. Instead, they take an
informal approach and range back and forth among negotiation, ordinary problem solv-
ing, attempts at listening, identifying core concerns, and every other conflict skill you
have learned so far.
Although some writers distinguish between bargaining and negotiation most peo-
ple treat them as virtually synonymous terms. For the remainder of this chapter, the
two terms will be used equally to represent the same activity. Negotiation presumes the
following:
∙ Participants engage in the conflict rather than avoiding.
∙ Parties resist using domination, or power-over tactics (if they are using integrative
bargaining).
∙ Parties use persuasive communication tactics in a variety of styles.
∙ Parties have reached an active, problem-solving phase in which specific proposals are
traded.
In the active negotiation process, all the parties depend on their assessment of the
power and the structure of the situation to regulate their own behavior, to maximize their
own gains, and search for acceptable proposals so resolution can be achieved. Parties must
be able to provide resources and to influence goal achievement, and they must be willing
to do so through cooperation (Donohue and Kolt 1992). No purpose is served by negotiat-
ing with someone who has nothing to offer you. Parties have to be motivated to struggle
together to achieve common and individual goals. Parties in conflict agree tacitly to a
framework of ground rules to manage conflict (Putnam 2010).
We negotiate for specific agreements. Negotiation occurs every day in both private
and public contexts. Even young children negotiate (Joshi 2008; Tuval-Mashiach and
Shulman 2006). The following situations call on your everyday negotiating skills: Notice
the overlapping nature of TRIP concerns in each of the situations. As you read the follow-
ing examples, fill in the TRIP concerns for each:
∙ Your friend wants to have you over for dinner at 8:00 p.m., and you want to come
earlier. (This may be a struggle over power relationships and the process of how the
decision is made, in addition to “when the dinner is going to happen.”)
∙ You have a computer problem and want to persuade your professor to give you
more time for completion of a paper. (You are negotiating for a topic agreement,
and are attempting to equalize power relationships with your professor. Addition-
ally, you may feel identity concerns—“I am not a person who lies or puts off my
work.”)
∙ Your elderly mother, who has lived alone for decades, has fallen and broken her
hip; you and your siblings need to talk about possible assisted living care. Every-
one has a different opinion. The topic outcome matters, but so do all the other
concerns such as how the family makes the decision process, who has more power
(relationship) and identity (whether the sibling closest to mom is seen as having
done a good job caring for her). In addition, mom’s concerns interact with the sib-
lings’ concerns.
Application 8.1 Analyzing TRIP Concerns
For the following, analyze the TRIP concerns:

• Your father has agreed to pay for 4 years of college for you, but you now need one extra
semester beyond 4 years to complete school.
• You and your roommate, who was your best friend, bought many household items together.
Recently, because you now are dating her ex-boyfriend, you have had a serious falling out
with each other. You agree to stop rooming together but now have to decide who gets what
items in the apartment.
• You are in charge of scheduling co-workers. A disagreement arises over who has to take over
holiday and late-night shifts.
• You are an hourly employee. Your supervisor says, “I don’t care what hours you guys work
just so the store is covered, so the four of you decide what hours you want to work.” The
co-workers have trouble agreeing.
• You buy carpet from a store and clearly tell the salesperson that you want the old carpet
saved so that you can give it to your friend. You come home at the end of the day, and the
new carpet looks nice, but the old carpet is gone. A quick phone call reveals that it was taken
to the landfill and cannot be retrieved.
• Your daughter, age 15, wants to go on an overnight trip with friends. You want her to be able
to go, but she’s been slacking off on household agreements. She’s in an independent phase.
How would you negotiate with her?
Application 8.2 Role-Play and Analysis
With your small group, choose several of the above situations to enact in a role-play. As observers,
your task is to draw the overlapping goals as the role-play continues, then make suggestions for
turning points that would help the negotiators not only reach agreement, but reach an emotionally
satisfying agreement. Discuss your separate observations with each other. Ask what the people
taking the parts in the role-play were attempting, and how they think they succeeded.
In both our personal and work lives, we negotiate to make decisions that are accept-
able to everyone concerned. One survey found that human services administrators spend
26% of their time negotiating (Files 1981). Further, with the advent of “self-directed
work teams,” the ability to negotiate both within the team and from the team to the wider
organization takes on added importance. Think of negotiation as an interactive, intense
conversation, which includes all the accompanying feelings that any conflict resolution
presents. Negotiation is no more “objective” than any other approach. The TRIP concerns
are always present; personal history plays a role; gender matters; power matters; and the
history of the friendship, group, marriage, or work team matters.
Application 8.3 Negotiation Opportunities
List as many situations as you can think of that involve negotiation possibilities:
• Situations when you could have negotiated, but did not.
• Situations when you did not negotiate well.
• Situations when you were overpowered and could not negotiate at all.
• Situations when you used power as “power over” rather than taking time to negotiate.
• Situations when you avoided negotiating and later regretted your avoiding strategy.
• Situations you are involved in right now that might benefit from negotiating.
Negotiation and Culture

In Western cultures, we receive contradictory messages about negotiation. On the one
hand, you might be encouraged by your friends to “get a good deal,” but on the other, you
are expected to walk into commercial establishments and pay the listed prices. In intimate
relationships, often people don’t know how to negotiate with love and respect. Marriage
vows should contain the phrase, “to love, honor, and negotiate”! Typical organizations in
the United States are currently working to change their organizational culture to support
negotiation among teams instead of top-down decision making as the preferred style. Many
organizations talk about the value of teams but allow conflicts to evolve into litigation or
near litigation and only then begin to manage conflict (Lipsky and Seeber 2006). Managers
send confusing messages about who is supposed to make the decisions; on the one hand
they communicate “I’m in charge,” on the other they indicate they want their teams to
make decisions. In the decision-making vacuum, sometimes people suffer in silence until
they are prepared for a formal grievance. An organization culture supportive of negotiation
would eliminate most of these escalatory moves. Employees and private citizens escalate
toward litigation when the culture does not present meaningful negotiation opportunities.
Examine the following situations and decide in which ones you would go along with oth-
ers, decide by yourself, and in which ones you would negotiate:
Negotiable?
∙ The price of a new house
∙ The part(s) of the apartment/house/dorm room you and your roommates will use
∙ The price of a used or new car
∙ The price of an item on sale at a chain store (CD, book, portable radio, etc.)
∙ The price of pens and paper at the college bookstore
∙ The salary offered at McDonald’s or Burger King
∙ The amount of time you work at your job
∙ The final paper assignment in your class
∙ The final grade you receive in your conflict class
∙ The price of a used microwave at a garage sale
∙ The person(s) who will care for your aging parents

∙ Where you and your fiancé spend your holidays
∙ Whether you can move home and work while temporarily dropping out of school
∙ What will be the guidelines for “house rules” while four friends share a house during
college
As you can determine, some items are negotiable and others are not. How do we know?
Each culture designates areas that are off limits to negotiation and areas in which negotia-
tion is acceptable. If you have traveled in different countries, you may have experienced
cultural differences relating to negotiating over prices. Several studies show that Latino
negotiators sometimes are at a disadvantage negotiating with North American negotiators.
Latino norms urge negotiators to be most concerned about fairness for the other party. A
negotiation is seen as a failure if one party wins and the other loses, a value that may not be
shared by North American negotiators. This pattern of concern for others fits collectivist
culture expectations, while “hard bargaining” is more likely to fit Anglo male bargain-
ers. Latino male disputants often offered to split the difference, fifty–fifty, right from the
beginning. Anglo male negotiators were likely to see this as a weak start to bargaining, and
took advantage of this perceived weakness. Thus, Latino negotiators ended up with less
than 50% except when they bargained with other Latino men (Rack 2000).
The lines of difference separating those in conflict can run just as deep within coun-
tries. In many Native American cultures, the differences between traditional Native people
and “business people” are just as great as the differences between Native and non-Native
cultures (Goldberg 2009).
Intercultural theorists point out other differences important to negotiators. One crucial
concern is the approach to time and order. In monochromic cultures, approaches to time are
linear and orderly. Negotiators focus on one item at a time. Western European–influenced
cultures tend toward monochromic views of time, with the exception of some differences,
such as in some Native American cultures. Polychronic orientations involve simultaneous
discussions of many items, with the involvement of many people. Time spent on negotia-
tion is more elastic; specific schedules and agendas tend not to matter. This orientation
occurs in Mediterranean and Latin cultures, as well as some Asian and African cultures
(see LeBaron, 2014, for further descriptions of cultural differences).
Negotiation itself is viewed differently in different cultures. For instance, one would
not negotiate over price in Switzerland, but would in Greece and Turkey (but not in res-
taurants). Many cultures see North Americans as rude and aggressive in our insistence on
trying to get what we want. Others see North Americans as naïve for not bargaining. What
do you know from experience about bargaining in various cultures? What is the approved
procedure for bargaining in commercial transactions in various cultures?
We differ considerably from one another in our comfort with negotiating and our will-
ingness to negotiate in different situations. For some of us negotiation in private relation-
ships is fine, whereas for others of us it is off limits or very uncomfortable. Similarly,
many people take along a friend to negotiate for them when they buy a large item like a car
because they are not comfortable “haggling over price.” How do you respond to various
negotiation situations? How does your negotiation preference relate to your conflict style
(see Chapter 5)?
Constructive Argumentation: Test

Ideas, Not People
Effective negotiation depends on skilled argumentation. Rhetorical traditions support con-
temporary negotiation theory and practice. Negotiation does not use formal, debate-style
argumentation, but the same principles of adapting the argument to the situation apply in
a negotiation, as in a speech. The “rules of evidence” are different, because negotiation,
like all conflict resolution, uses personal, emotional, and factual evidence to make an argu-
ment. What comes to your mind when someone says, “Oh, he is just arguing again?” For
many people argument implies both disagreeing on content and using a disagreeable tone.
The following excerpt from a student paper exemplifies this common stance:
When I get into an argument with a person over something I stand for, then I really like to get
involved and have a good battle. If my competitor has a good stand on his issues, then I like
to “rip” at him until he breaks or, if things go wrong, I break. The excitement of confrontation
when I’m battling it out with another person has a tremendous thrill for me if I come out as the
victor. I love it when we are at each other’s throats.
Clearly this student prefers a competitive stance!

Negotiation relies on persuasion, rather than threats and coercion. Discussion dur-
ing negotiation depends on all parties remaining open to new information. They must
persuade and be open to persuasion, while searching for accurate information to discuss
(Ledgerwood, Callahan, and Chaiken 2014). In the persuasive process, topic disagree-
ments do not have to take over the other TRIP elements. You can disagree on content and
be respectful and courteous—maintaining the relationship component of conflict. You
can offer forceful opinions about an issue, yet protect the face/identity of the other people
involved. In negotiation situations the following phrases allow participants to disagree on
content without being “disagreeable”:
∙ I don’t agree with your position about the election.

∙ At our last group meeting, you and Natalie agreed to do the research on the town’s
decision to buy the water company. We all have plans to go to the council meeting.
Now you are saying you want to do the interviews, which Troy and Samantha have
begun. Since we are duplicating efforts, we’re going to have to negotiate who does
what. (The speaker identifies the problem and does not attack the people who changed
their focus.)
∙ I’m pretty firm about not agreeing with you, but tell me more about how you came to
this idea.
∙ We still disagree about the role of government in our private lives, but let’s listen to
one another one at a time.
∙ John, that sure isn’t my memory about what I agreed to about the deposit.
∙ We agreed to negotiate on vacation benefits. Our benefits package was circulated
without any input from the paralegal staff. As their supervisor, I’m asking you as
the human resources director to intervene with the managers and set up a meeting
so we can negotiate, as they said they would. (This is both a topic and a process
disagreement.)
As you can see from these examples, one doesn’t have to destroy the relational or identity
dimensions in an argument in order to advance a strong topic argument. In fact, the whole
tradition of debate (such as college debates and debates during campaign years) rests on
agreeing on process rules to protect identity, procedural, and relationship dimensions so
that the arguments can focus on the topic (even though debaters routinely sneak in personal
attacks, unfortunately). In well-done argumentation you state what you are claiming and
present evidence for your claim. Arguers:
(1) use the principles of argumentation with compassion

(2) reaffirm your opponent’s sense of competence
(3) allow opponents to finish what they are saying
(4) emphasize equality
(5) emphasize shared attitudes
(6) show opponents you are interested in their views
(7) use a somewhat subdued, calm delivery
(8) control the pace of the argument
(9) allow your opponent to save face (Infante 1988).
This description of argumentation corresponds remarkably well to integrative inter-
personal negotiation.
You can observe violations of constructive arguing daily. Television shows make
money showing people attacking each other, glorifying nonconstructive argumentation.
In contrast to this, in professional debate circles, it is considered a logical fallacy to attack
the other debater personally. It is called argumentum ad hominem, which means “argument
against the man.” If you are a professional advocate in a courtroom, there are strict rules
about not attacking the other side personally, and the rules are interpreted and enforced by
the judge—ensuring that argument will occur on the topic level. The judge won’t let you,
for example, make the following statement: “The other attorney is just a jerk, and I can’t
believe the defendant is wasting his money employing him.” Ad hominem arguments don’t
work well in negotiation, either. In informal negotiation, you might commit this fallacy
when you call the other person a name or label them negatively.
Interpersonal argument, done properly, may in fact be the heart and soul of modern-
day interpersonal problem solving and conflict management. Recent research on nego-
tiation emphasizes communication and psychology. This is a significant departure from
earlier, rationally based approaches (Bazerman, Curhan, and Moore 2000; Malhotra and
Bazerman 2007; Thompson 2001). Researchers are converging on the idea, in all contexts
of conflict resolution from interpersonal to international, that the “facts only” approach,
resting on the assumption that the other parties will make decisions in a rational way,
based on their perceived best interests, is not the way people really make decisions. Effec-
tive negotiators do not destroy relationships with others, personally attack them, destroy
their face, or violate standards of procedure. When one person says something sarcastic
such as, “I wouldn’t expect you to understand. You’re sitting on a trust fund and couldn’t
be expected to know the value of money to ordinary people,” the relationship and identity
levels become the field of argument, with destructive effects. Research about face threat
and negotiation shows that threatening face of the other derails the negotiations (White,
Tynan, Galinsky, and Thompson 2004). Furthermore, we respond differently in negotiat-

ing (1) a public issue or (2) a personal issue in a relationship. When arguing about public
issues, parties tend to enjoy it more and not be so ego-involved as when arguing about their
personal relationship (Johnson 2002).
In constructive conflicts, arguments focus on levels of discourse that will move the
conflict toward resolution. When argument focuses on relationship or identity issues,
the conflict may generate much heat but little light. As in classical debate, the honorable
approach is to engage on those issues that are real and will help the dialogue. Anything else
blocks progress. In ancient Rome, Quintilian, one of the earliest rhetoricians, wrote of the
characteristics of an effective orator: intelligence, character, and goodwill. These attributes
describe the effective negotiator as well.
Application 8.4 Watching an Argument
Watch a televised argument, live exchange, or debate. (Try your city council, tribal council, state
legislature, or national election.)
• What types of argumentation do the opponents use?
• Do the arguers give evidence for their claims?
• Do the arguers show support for relationship, identity, and procedural issues while vigorously
disagreeing on topics?
• If there is a moderator, does she or he work to keep the disputants in the “constructive” zone
or allow them to get away with attacking one another personally?
• If these two were to actually sit down together and negotiate, what might they do to ensure
equal negotiation strength and a productive process?
Approaches to Negotiation
Most views of negotiation outside of the academic area present a limited perspective. Since
negotiation is such a pervasive conflict management process, it is little wonder that scores
of books have been written about it. Unfortunately, some of the popular advice reinforces
a win/lose perspective. Many popular authors see bargaining as a “game of managing
impressions and manipulating information. Bargaining is a struggle for advantage, for with
the advantage come beneficial outcomes” (Walker 1988, 219). Amateur negotiators often
adopt a win/lose view of negotiation (Bazerman and Neale 1983).
Another limited view of the negotiation process is to conceptualize it as a series of
compromises. From this perspective, negotiation is simply a trade-off in which each gives
up something to reach a middle ground; the development of creative options is ignored.
This is more accurately called negotiated compromise (virtually all negotiation involves
compromise). One final limitation of most literature on negotiation is that it centers on
(1) formal negotiations, between (2) negotiating representatives, in which (3) the begin-
nings and endings of the negotiations are clearly delineated. We will discuss some aspects
of such negotiations; however, most of us will never be professional negotiators. Therefore,
this chapter emphasizes everyday situations.
Competitive Negotiation
Assumptions
Competitive, or distributive, negotiations rest on the assumption that what one person
wins, the other person loses. Typically, the distributive bargainer is not concerned about a
future relationship with the other party and is trying to maximize gain and minimize loss.
Unfortunately, some people in ongoing relationships act as if they do not have this relation-
ship, using distributive assumptions. The basic assumptions of distributive, or competitive,
negotiation are as follows:
∙ The negotiating world is controlled by egocentric self-interest.

∙ The underlying motivation is competitive/antagonistic.
∙ Limited resources prevail.
∙ One can make independent choices: Tomorrow’s decision remains unaffected by
today’s decision.
∙ The resource distribution system is distributive in nature (either/or).
∙ The goal is to win as much as you can. (Murray 1986)
For example, you and your sister both want to use your dad’s car for an overnight trip.
Competitive negotiators assume that the conflict is win/lose (or “zero-sum” in game theory
terms). The rewards in such a conflict are seen as a “fixed pie” to be distributed between
the parties. Therefore, if you get to use the car, your sister is out of luck. No one tries
joint problem solving, such as dropping your sister off at her destination. In competitive
negotiations, each party usually maintains a resistance point or a bargaining range beyond
which he or she will not go (Popple 1984). For example, from a competitive approach, the
relevant information for buying a house is this:
Buyer’s range: $265,000–$390,000
Seller’s range: $375,000–$400,000
Each person’s range determines his or her offers and counteroffers. The seller lists the
house for $400,000. The buyer makes a first offer of $365,000. After negotiations, through
a Realtor the buyer offers $378,000. The seller says that she will not part with the house
for less than $390,000. But, in her heart of hearts, she knows that she can buy a new place
she wants with $376,500. Buyer and seller slowly move toward their “settlement range”
(between $376,500 and $378,000). In this example, the settlement range is already appar-
ent, based on the list price and the first offer, so when the buyer says, “$378,000 is my final
offer,” the seller takes the offer.
Organizations often set up or inherit a conflict management system that suppresses
the difficult, but common, reality of everyday organizational conflict. Managers hope team
leaders and members will work well together, but systems for informal problem solving
and negotiation are seldom in place. Many managers and CEOs are remarkably conflict
avoidant. They will put up with ongoing undercutting, disrespect, marginalizing of certain
people, coalition formation, and avoidance of problems for a long time. Not every leader
is like this, of course, but many are. Their gifts may be in their area of expertise, not in
interpersonal communication. Conflict management structures sometimes are confined to
formal grievance procedures, union involvement, or firing the “problem person.” Often, it
is not possible or desirable to fire someone, so the problems simmer along until they blow
up. While conflicts are layered and complex, conflict management systems are too often
inadequate (Aula and Siira 2010).
This is a good time for the senior author of this text to make a personal suggestion.
Take every course you can on conflict management, in whatever department. When you
graduate, you might want to take the 40-hour mediation trainings offered around the coun-
try. Other continuing education courses are often offered in conflict resolution. You might
seek an internship in a location that will give you experience in informal conflict manage-
ment. You could volunteer with organizations that can use your conflict skills. Keep read-
ing about and practicing your conflict skills. When you are looking for jobs or asking for a
promotion, you can spotlight your special skills in conflict management. Write the senior
author to check in about how you are continuing your work. I’d love to hear from you!
In the following case, a couple must negotiate an important life decision. See how well
or poorly they do:
Application 8.5 Mistaken Assumptions
Randy and Jennifer have been married for 6 years. They have moved back to the city where they
met and went to college so Randy could finish his degree in resource management. They now have
two children, ages 4 and 2. Jennifer has a job she loves at the university, in her former social work
department, where she organizes internships for undergraduate students. She feels fortunate to
have landed this job without an advanced degree; her experience gained her the position. After
a miserable time of working for one of his professors doing field research, Randy decided he had
no future in the academic research world. His interests lay in working with different constituent
groups to manage natural resources. He has a strong communication background to go along with
his resource management degree. When a planning and consulting firm offered him a job 4 hours
away, Jennifer and Randy decided he should take it. They have 6 months to decide whether to
move to Denver from Laramie. After several months of 4-day weeks, then driving back to Laramie
for the weekend, Randy told Jennifer he really wanted the family to move to Denver so they could
be together. Here’s how their first negotiation sounded:
Randy: Jen, I miss you and the kids, and I hate being a weekend dad. It only makes sense
for us all to move to Denver. I’m making enough money now that you can go back
to school after a year or so. I think we should put the house on the market.
Jennifer: I won’t even consider it. I have a wonderful job; the kids have their friends. I know I
said I’d consider moving, but I can’t bear the idea of leaving this place we love. So,
my answer is “no.”
Randy: I make enough money now that your continuing in your job and our paying travel
costs and for my apartment is just stupid. We need to consolidate our resources in
Denver. You’ll love it when you get used to it. We can live in a smaller town outside
the city.
Jennifer: I’ll think about it right when Olivia starts school (2 years from this conversation).
(continued)
Application 8.5 Mistaken Assumptions
Randy: Maybe I won’t care by then. You can just stay in Laramie and we can start working
out a parenting plan, since this plan of yours leads to divorce.
Jennifer: I’ll never split the kids’ time with you. You got yourself into this great job; you can
deal with the travel.
(And so on. . . .) If this negotiation stops here, it would be a sad, failed competitive negotia-
tion. Many negotiations do stop at this point.
Clearly Randy and Jennifer don’t know how to negotiate when the relationship is
important, ongoing, and there is mutual love and affection. As we discussed in the emo-
tions chapter, we can assume that Randy and Jennifer’s core feelings might be fear, fear of
loss and change, and surprise/shock. We will revisit Randy and Jennifer after we present
some ideas for collaborative negotiation.
Communication Patterns in Competitive Negotiation

Since competitive bargaining assumes that the goals of the parties are in direct conflict
and that what you gain, the other loses, you gain a competitive advantage by starting with
a high or extreme offer (Fisher 1985). For instance, if you sue someone, you will ask for
large amounts of money—for what the other loses, you gain. Similarly, if you are a com-
petitive negotiator negotiating for a new job and employers ask you, “What salary do you
want?” you will say “$65,000,” knowing you would be happy with $50,000. Competitive
bargainers withhold data from each other and try to throw off each other’s ability to predict
responses, meanwhile learning as much as possible about each other’s position (Putnam
and Poole 1987). The competitive bargainer:
∙ Makes high opening demands and concedes slowly
∙ Tries to maximize tangible resource gains, within the limits of the current dispute
∙ Exaggerates the value of concessions that are offered
∙ Uses threats, confrontations, argumentation, and forceful speaking
∙ Conceals information
∙ Manipulates people and the process by distorting intentions, resources, and goals
∙ Tries to resist persuasion on issues
∙ Is oriented to quantitative and material competitive goals rather than relational goals
(Adapted from Murray 1986; Lax and Sebenius 1986)
The competitive bargainer times concessions (giving in and moving toward the other’s
position) carefully and moves in a stepwise fashion—giving a little bit at a time until a
settlement range can be reached with the other. Since both people are probably in a com-
petitive mode, each is trying to get the other to make concessions. However, you are more
likely to receive concessions from someone else when you can convince them you cannot
make a concession (Schelling 1960). Thus, each negotiator is trying to convince the other
that he or she cannot “give” any more and that the only way the negotiations can reach
settlement is if the other gives in (Edwards and White 1977). Former president Jimmy
Carter wrote about his role as mediator in the Camp David accords, in which Anwar Sadat
of Egypt and Menachem Begin of Israel spent 13 days in isolation negotiating peace in
their region. To convince Sadat of his seriousness, Begin had taken a religious oath that he
would strike off his right hand if he gave up land in the Sinai desert. Carter came up with
the idea that the Israeli parliament, not Begin personally, could enact the moves that would
give land back to Egypt. Begin saved face and was able to go ahead with a plan he person-
ally endorsed, after days of negotiating.
Power Interacts with Gender

In situations of competitive negotiation, power interacts with gender. Women and men
view competition differently. Women are as oriented toward achievement as men are. But
as we have seen in previously cited research, women often value self-in-relationship so
much that competing with a partner is not worth it. Men tend to orient more toward status,
especially with other men. Women and men, therefore, experience different disadvantages
and advantages when competitive negotiation is the norm (Kohn 1992).
Men generally enjoy more favorable outcomes in competitive negotiation settings.
A sense of power brings forth the communication behaviors of assertiveness and domi-
nance, more closely allied with men’s social roles than women’s (even at this date in
history). What would happen if women felt more powerful going into a distributive nego-
tiation setting? Researchers posed this question in an experiment. Women wrote about a
situation in which they remembered being powerful enough to control another’s behavior.
A standardized checklist assessing the extent to which the women or men saw them-
selves as powerful was administered. Sure enough, the women who were given a chance
to reflect on their history of experiencing power made better first offers, in a house-sale
experiment, and reached a negotiated sale to the same extent as did men. (See Hong and
van der Wijst 2013; Nelson et al. 2015 for a summary of this experiment and other power
and gender research.)
A group of researchers followed this bargaining study with a complex analysis of
power and gender, using the Rahim dual concern model presented in Chapter 5. Their
study focused on negotiating salary and benefits, with all possible gender and power dyads
represented in the study. Researchers found that collaborating, compromising, and obliging
enhanced agreement, while dominating decreased agreement. They did not find a gender
difference in negotiations when power and gender were accounted for in their study. Their
results call for a “sensible mixture of feminine and masculine behaviors,” pointing out that
negotiations were impaired by extreme competitiveness. Extreme obliging was exploited
by the opponent. Men tend to maintain their advantage over women in distributive negotia-
tions, while women seem to maintain an advantage in collaborating toward an agreement
(Nelson et al. 2015).
What might these gender and power conclusions mean for students of conflict manage-
ment? In single-situation negotiations, such as buying houses or cars, or playing competi-
tive games, men maintain an advantage over women when looking at the outcomes—cost
and winning. Male social roles give men an advantage in these arenas. However, when the
negotiation situation is partly competitive and partly communal, such as negotiating with a
person who may become your employer, a mix of masculine and feminine behaviors works
well. Certainly, a mix of behaviors is called for in even more interdependent negotiations,
which will be considered in the next section. Women might consider asking for coaching
from their male friends when they are entering into a highly competitive, single-session
negotiation. Men might consider asking for coaching from their female friends when they
enter a highly interdependent, long-term set of negotiations.
Many well-known competitive strategies can be used to advance one’s own goals.
You only behave cooperatively if it helps you attain a larger share of the pie. You see the
game of negotiation as one of picking the right maneuvers, much like a military strategy;
you must present a strong defense and try to stay on the offensive. If you show elements
of weakness—showing your hand or offering concessions too large or too early—these
weaknesses will work against you. Competitive negotiators go to great lengths to convince
the opponent that they will not be swayed. When you say, “This is my bottom line!” you
are trying to convince the other that you will not make concessions, so the other party had
better make some.
If Randy and Jennifer continue to bargain competitively, they might say something
like this:
Jennifer: I will consider moving in a year. Olivia will just be starting kindergarten. I can’t
believe you would uproot us all when we’ve chosen, you and I together, Laramie
as the place we really want to live.
Randy: But you don’t want me to live there. You don’t care about me, just yourself
and your friend circle. You supported my taking this job. So now support our
family.
Jennifer: I do it my way, you do it yours.
They still don’t get it. . . .
Disadvantages of Competitive Negotiation

As Follett (1940) observed many years ago, working out a position without first consult-
ing others blocks conflict management. The following list summarizes what Kohn (1992)
refers to as the case against competition.
∙ Has a strong bias toward confrontation, encouraging the use of coercion and emo-
tional pressure as persuasive means; is hard on relationships, breeding mistrust,
feelings of separateness, frustration, and anger, resulting in more frequent break-
downs in negotiations; and distorts communication, producing misinformation and
misjudgment.
∙ Works against responsiveness and openness to opponent, thereby restricting access to
joint gains.
∙ Encourages brinkmanship by creating many opportunities for impasse.
∙ Increases difficulty in predicting responses of opponent because reliance is on
manipulation and confrontation to control process.
∙ Contributes to an overestimation of the payoffs of competitive actions such as litiga-
tion because the focus is not on a relatively objective analysis of substantive merits
(Murray 1986, 184).
A common disadvantage experienced in competitive negotiation may be that dur-

ing group negotiations (such as community, tribal, or political groups), resolvable dis-
putes may be suddenly transformed into intractable conflicts. Why does this happen?
Groups may reinforce members of their groups into a tribes effect, in which members
act as if everything is me versus you, and us versus them (Shapiro 2016, 23). You can
tell when you are under the influence of a tribes effect when you feel adversarial and
self-righteous (Shapiro 2016, 24). Self-righteous, adversarial, competitive, and hostile
attitudes never lead to peaceful solutions. Integrating in conflicts when high emotion
pervades the atmosphere depends on listening to learn, postponing and avoiding blam-
ing, polarizing, and withdrawing. The metaphor from the American West of circling
the wagons against an enemy applies here. Inside the circle, one can only shoot outside
the perimeter, counting on people inside the circle to support you. Circling the wagons,
or shouting down everyone not in your metaphorical tribe, ultimately fails because the
action is not sustainable.
Competition is popularly viewed as a practice that stimulates productivity, but in fact
collaboration increases productive ideas. Competition only builds healthy self-esteem in
the winners; losers suffer lack of self-esteem. Winning assumes there are losers.
The situations most appropriate for a competitive approach to negotiations are
those that are truly win/lose, where one party stands to lose and the other stands to
gain. For example, most lawsuits for malpractice can be seen as win/lose. When no
ongoing relationship with the conflict partner is predicted, a competitive approach can
make sense—take what you can get and leave. Such an approach, obviously, is only
acceptable in a culture in which individual gain is valued and relationships are given
secondary consideration. If someone is truly Machiavellian, planning each move in life
strategically to obtain a payoff, competitiveness is at the center of his or her world-
view. Someone with an extreme “dog-eat-dog” worldview may say “I have to treat him
well because someday I’ll need him.” A truly competitive person keeps his or her eyes
on the prize at all times. Yet, seldom is competitive negotiation the best choice in an
ongoing relationship.
Integrative Negotiation
In integrative negotiation, the negotiators attempt to settle a dispute in a way that max-
imizes all of their interests, as opposed to creating a winner and a loser (Lewicki and
Tomlinson 2014). Integrative negotiation requires ongoing back-and-forth use of reflective
listening and assertion skills by one or both parties. Management of conflict through effec-
tive negotiation requires listening to the other party; indicating that you understand his or
her concerns; expressing your feelings; stating your points in a firm but friendly manner;
linking your points to points expressed by the other party; and working toward a joint reso-
lution that builds on the ideas of both parties and addresses all concerns (Umbreit 1995).
You will recognize the principles and practices of integrative negotiation as completely
overlapping with the verbal style and assumptions of integrating or collaborating. Integra-
tive negotiation brings into practice these style preferences.
Integrative negotiation assumes that the parties have both (1) diverse interests and
(2) common interests and that the negotiation process can result in both parties gain-
ing something. Mixed motives, separate needs, and interdependent needs characterize
integrative negotiation. Integrative negotiation assumes that creativity can transcend

the win/lose aspect of competitive negotiations.
One classic example, often repeated in a variety of forms, comes from Mary Parker
Follett (1940), who coined the term integrative. She illustrates an integrative solution to a
conflict that at first appears to be competitive.
In the Harvard Library one day, in one of the smaller rooms, someone wanted the window open;
I wanted it shut. We opened the window in the next room, where no one was sitting. This was
not a compromise because there was no curtailing of desire; we both got what we really wanted.
For I did not want a closed room, I simply did not want the north wind to blow directly on me;
likewise the other occupant did not want that particular window open, he merely wanted more
air in the room. (32)
Although she doesn’t detail her bargaining process, the result was clearly integrative—
it integrated the needs of both parties. One of the assumptions of integrative negotiation is
that people holding opposite positions are not necessarily in conflict. For example, if two
people are negotiating, sometimes they can reach a satisfactory solution precisely because
they want different things. Some of the polar opposites that can be reconciled in integrative
negotiation are as follows:
One party cares more about Other party cares more about
form, appearance economic substance
considerations political
internal considerations
considerations external
symbolic considerations
considerations practical
immediate future considerations
ad hoc results more distant future
hardware the relationship
progress ideology
precedent respect for
prestige, reputation tradition this case
political points results
group welfare
(Fisher, Ury, and Patton 1991, 74)
Recall that in Chapter 3, we suggested that conflict parties often specialize in certain kinds
of goals. If you are most concerned about “getting things done” (results) and your work
associate is more concerned about “looking good” (prestige, reputation), your needs are
not necessarily incompatible. For instance, you may want to make sure the work is done for
your campus committee and the other may want to make sure there is newspaper coverage
of the event you are sponsoring. He can help you get the job done, and you can put him in
touch with a reporter you know. Collaborative approaches treat assumed opposites as con-
nected and not incompatible.
Assumptions
Just as the competitive model of negotiation carries basic assumptions, so does the integra-
tive model of negotiation. The process rests on the following:
∙ The negotiating world is controlled by enlightened self-interest.
∙ Common interests are valued and sought.
∙ Interdependence is recognized and enhanced.
∙ Limited resources do exist, but they can usually be expanded through cooperation.
∙ The resource distribution system is integrative (joint) in nature.
∙ The goal is a mutually agreeable solution that is fair to all parties and efficient for the
community. (Murray 1986)
Seven Elements of Principled Negotiation

In previous editions of this book, we have relied upon Fisher and Ury’s Getting to Yes
(1981) work for their practical approach to collaborative negotiation that has become
very popular, for good reason. Fisher and Ury term the process “negotiation on merits”
or principled negotiation. Principled negotiation and integrative negotiation describe the
same approach. Researchers at the Harvard Negotiation Project now present an expansion
of that model, which incorporates their widely used previous model (Fisher and Shapiro
2005). They continue to work with the Core Concerns presented earlier. Core Concerns
are the principles underlying the following steps. The seven elements of principled nego-
tiation remain exceptionally useful as a guide. They follow, in a slightly revised form.
1. Attend to the relationship.
How does each party think and feel about the other? Build a good relationship, working
together side by side. Separate the people from the problem. Negotiators work to resolve
the problem. The people are not the problem. Attack and research the problem, not the
people involved. This takes self-discipline, since it’s so easy to try to tear the other person
down. Destruction of the other person never works in the long run.
2. Attend to all elements of communication.
Work to build positive, two-way communication, and avoid telling others what to do.
Take into account all the discussion of strong emotions explored in Chapter 6. Show you
are a person worthy of trust by expressing appreciation, forming affiliations (turn adver-
saries into colleagues), respecting autonomy (yours and theirs), acknowledging status,
and staying within a fulfilling role. In other words, try not to allow the negotiating process
to change your positive, chosen role as a good communicator. (Read further on these
ideas in Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate, Fisher and Shapiro 2005, and
Negotiating the Nonnegotiable: How to Resolve Your Most Emotionally Charged Con-
flicts, Shapiro 2016.)
3. Focus on interests, not positions.
Disclose your actual concerns and interests, not “bottom-line positions.” Positions come
from interests. When people discuss their actual interests in a transparent way, they are
much more likely to come to a mutual agreement. Interestingly, the integrative bargainer
can be just as “tough” as the competitive bargainer. However, you get tough about differ-
ent aspects. You remain firm about your goals but flexible regarding how to accomplish
them—what Pruitt (1983a) calls firm flexibility. You work with the other party, but you
don’t capitulate; your goals are always firm in your mind, but the means you use are flex-
ible and adapted to the other person’s needs as well. As Follett (1940) noted, “Mushy
people are no more good at this than stubborn people” (40).
As explained earlier, when we are in a dispute, we usually believe we know what
the other wants. But this guess is usually inaccurate. When we don’t ask the other about
his or her interests, we simply project ours onto him or her. A teenager, negotiating with
parents over chores and grades, when asked what his parent’s interests are, is likely to say
(with great confidence), “Oh, they are control freaks.” The parents might believe that their
15-year-old son wants to do only what he wants and not take family responsibilities. The
truth might be that the parents are interested in bargaining (freedom for chores) and the
teen is, as well. We don’t know what the other wants if we don’t ask genuine, open-ended
questions, such as “What is your goal here? What are you most interested in? What would
make you feel you have ended up with what you most want?” This kind of questioning and
listening builds effective conversation about real interests.
Joan placed her house on the market for $425,000. If you are a buyer, negotiating with
her on the price of the house, and a friend asks you, “Why is she asking so much?” you may
well answer, “Because she wants to make as much as she can.” You conclude that, based on
what your interests would be in her situation. In fact, she asks $425,000 as proof of the value
of the improvements she has added to the house during the 10 years she owned it. So, unless
the other tells you what he or she wants, you are playing a guessing game. Joan’s topic goal
is a specific price, while her identity goals involve getting credit for the substantial improve-
ments she made. An integrative negotiator would compliment Joan on the quality of the
improvements, while continuing to bargain for a selling cost in his own area of settlement.
In disputes, relational and identity interests often remain hidden, under the surface of
the negotiations. Go back to Joan, the house seller, for a moment. She was raised in a small
town; how people treat one another is very important to her. She puts her house on the
market for $425,000. You, as a prospective buyer, try to bargain hard. Your Realtor tends
to be tough in negotiations—pushing hard, making “low-ball” offers, and using competi-
tive tactics to try to reduce the price. In making your first offer to Joan, the Realtor, says,
in a nasty tone of voice, “Well, my client will only come up to $318,000 because he feels
you have overpriced the house.” After many back-and-forth offers and counteroffers, you
and Joan agree to $375,000. Then, just before signing the buy–sell agreement, Joan takes
the house off the market. After her Realtor contract expired, she puts it back on the market
and sells it for $350,000 to another buyer going through a Realtor who is a friend of Joan’s.
Joan’s relationship and identity issues were more important than the topic (the price).
Application 8.6 Multiple Interests
In small groups of four or five people, take the following position statements and brainstorm pos-
sible interests that might underlie them. Find a minimum of five possible interests for each position,
all different from one another. (continued)
Application 8.6 Multiple Interests
“I have to take 19 credits next term.”

“I want $250 for those skis.”
“You have to do the dishes every other night.”
“I want the kids to take my name, not their biological father’s.”
“Quit throwing your clothes on the floor of our apartment.”
“Pick me up at 8:00 sharp on Mondays to go to school.”
“You have to produce the first draft of our project.”
Position Possible Interests
Concern about safety
Wanting to be a good parent
Wanting to exercise control

Be in by 10:00
Wanting to protect against bad influences
Wanting to be able to sleep at night
Concerned about what neighbors think
4. Generate many options.

When the negotiation begins to look like a win–lose, zero-sum game, explore many options
by brainstorming and using creativity. Each possible option should include the genuine
interests of the other. Generating frivolous options wastes time and harms the relationship.
A good decision is one that springs from many options generated by concerned conflict
parties. A good decision should bring not only a sense of relief (“Well, we got through
that”) but also a sense of excitement and hope (“Good for us”).
5. Find legitimate criteria.
Try to discern whether the outcome is fair, just, reasonable, and respects the interests of each
party. When you discover that someone (even yourself) is only interested in winning or “get-
ting it done,” give your attention to how the result will be judged. One can develop objective
criteria by using fair procedures (balancing power in the process) and by seeking fair stan-
dards. Menzel (1991) suggests six external standards for fairness: simple success at reach-
ing an agreement, compliance with the agreement, cost of the agreement, efficiency through
which the agreement is reached, access to justice presented to disputants, and stability of the
agreement over time. These standards might be important to a court, to a branch of the govern-
ment such as the department of family services, to family members, or to managers overseeing
an agreement in their department. Other fair standards can be based on the following:
market value moral standards

costs professional standards
precedent equal treatment
what a court would decide efficiency
scientific judgment reciprocity
(Fisher and Ury 1981, 89)
6. Analyze the “Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement” (BATNA).

Consider your “walk-away” alternative as well as theirs. Recognize that any agreement
must be better for everyone involved than simply walking away. Sometimes people say,
“I do not need this.” If that statement is true, then negotiations will fail. When threats
are used by the other party, you can say, “We really need to come to agreement. If we
don’t, the consequences are extremely negative.” Then you can review the BATNA
to see if it is acceptable. When a person applying for a job in one place already has
received an acceptable offer at a previous organization, if satisfactory terms are not
reached at the second place, the BATNA to the job seeker is clear. She can take the
previous job. Knowing ahead of time what an acceptable alternative is helps the nego-
tiation process (Lewicki and Tomlinson 2014). Remember not to issue a threat unless
you want to follow through. The alternative must be an attractive one for the BATNA
principle to make sense.
7. Work with fair and realistic commitments.
Decide whether what you and the other party are asking is reasonable, doable, face-
saving, practical, and will enhance the working relationship. If someone is forced into an
unrealistic commitment, possibly just to get the problem temporarily solved, the conflict
will go underground and have to be revisited. So you gain nothing by winning with unreal-
istic and unfair commitments.
What Makes Implementing the Core Concerns So Difficult?

Many communication students want to implement both the Core Concerns system and
the principled negotiation that grows out of shared concerns. The concerns (appreciation,
affiliation, autonomy, status, and a satisfactory role) sometimes become very difficult to
put into practice, even when we want to. Why is this? Riskin (2010), one of the Harvard
Project on Negotiation researcher/teachers, gives some ideas as to why this is so. The fol-
lowing obstacles are adapted from Riskin’s work:
∙ People sometimes have excessively self-centered perspectives, which causes them to
focus primarily on themselves and not on others. They cannot get beyond this self-
perspective to gain curiosity, much less empathy, for the other.
∙ Strong negative emotions may wipe out one’s cognitive ability to take an integrative
focus. Fear and fury, for instance, may freeze one’s desire and ability to integrate.
∙ Automatic ways of thinking (the brain’s habituated response, which creates ingrained
neural circuits) impede one’s ability to use integrative thinking (Cozolino 2010;
Siegel 1999).
∙ Insensitivity to emotions. A person may lack the natural ability or skill to recognize
and respond to emotions. Awareness may be lacking, for whatever reason.
∙ Insufficient social skills and lack of mental focus (distraction) may inhibit a person’s
ability to use the Core Concern system.
Many writers discuss the values of mindfulness, calming down, self-soothing, taking
one’s own emotional temperature, and being in control of our emotions rather than letting
them control us. This is a lifelong project, difficult to learn, and deserves all the attention
we can give to it. Our conflict resolution skills and ability to live peacefully depend on
these most difficult intrapersonal skills.
Balancing Power
In integrative negotiations, the most basic task is to actively attempt to structure an even
playing field, a “level table,” or balanced power. Since this difficult task of equalizing
power is not always possible, sometimes you must decide whether to leave the table. For
example, if you know that you do not have the skills, the support, the power, and the oppor-
tunity to negotiate equally, you may decide to disengage, avoid, or get help from someone
who can balance the power. That help might come from an attorney, mediator, supervisor,
parent, friend, or co-worker. Sometimes, you can’t stay at the table and keep your sanity
and dignity. Remember that to negotiate effectively, you must be able to give resources that
are valued by the other, and to influence the other’s goals. You must be a player. Integrative
negotiation depends on at least temporarily balanced power.
If you are in a high-power situation and feel justified in exercising dominance, you
may become insensitive to the effects of that dominance on others. After all, you are right
and feel justified! When we have the power, we all too often use it to take shortcuts to get
what we want. We exercise such control not only to help or protect others, or out of genuine
need, but out of “fear, insecurity, vengeance, vanity, habit, self-will, boredom, and lazi-
ness” (Kritek 1994, 90). Dominance from one party promotes manipulation and avoidance
tactics from those lower in power. The cycle becomes an escalating cycle; seldom do peo-
ple exercising dominance see that they caused the cycle in the first place. The low-power
people feel victimized and begin to act like victims. Some of the most common manipula-
tive tactics are insincere praise, lying and deception, tricks and secret deals, attacks and
threats, deliberate stupidity or resistance, flirtatiousness and cuteness, harping on things,
withholding something important, and deference (Kritek 1994, 108).
Dominators often escalate the cycle by not listening to the needs of others, numbing
themselves to injustice, focusing only on their own needs and tasks, making light of others’
needs, trivializing and minimizing the needs of others, and blaming the victim. People who
use the classic destructive low-power tactics such as deceit and manipulation, and cannot
ask for what they want, contribute to an unhealthy dynamic.
Concern for the Relationship: Self and Other

In the dual concern model of conflict styles, the concern for self and concern for the other
describes and analyzes conflict behavior. We have seen that concern for the relationship
also plays an important role as people negotiate. Women and men employ strategies partly
influenced by the importance of a current or future relationship. When women in hetero-
sexual relationships use competitive negotiation strategies regarding career decision and
home tasks, the tactics backfire. Men become less involved in the emotional work of the
relationship. When women use cooperative tactics in intimate relationships, men are more
likely to invest emotionally in the relationship (Livingston 2014).
Concern for any relationship you are invested in, whether in a group, at work, or family/
intimate relationship, calls for a careful balancing of concern for self and other, result-
ing in concern for the relationship. Relationships improve with assertive behavior plus
cooperative (integrative, compromising, and obliging) conflict choices. Too much oblig-
ing keeps power unbalanced, which results in less satisfaction, in most relationships. Too
much assertive/dominating or competitive behavior also lessens emotional involvement in
any relationship. You will be more successful and satisfied when you balance concern for
self, other, and relationship.
Coaching for Integrative Negotiators: Putting It into Practice

At this point, you have learned quite a few skills and concepts that will help in your prac-
tice of integrative negotiation. When you are experienced, some of these approaches come
naturally. At the beginning, it’s helpful to think through your approach in a step-by-step
fashion. Becoming an artist in integrative negotiation is like becoming a fine musician—
you have to practice the scales, the basics, until playing becomes fluid. In the middle of
negotiation, most people don’t think of the steps of excellent negotiation—the communica-
tion comes naturally. However, that natural ease and fluidity rests on practice. The follow-
ing practices will help you develop your art.
Define Interests Before Negotiation
Think about what will satisfy you before you negotiate. You may not know yet how to
negotiate this particular concern, but you need to know what the concerns are. Consider
a dispute between a manager and employee. The manager would like to promote the
employee to a higher position, so the employee might take over some management roles.
While pleased with the vote of confidence, the employee does not want to be promoted
without a salary raise. This might be a dispute over how much money can be paid, or the
dispute may actually be emerging because the employee does not want to take over tasks
she would be assigned with a promotion. Only with open conversation can the actual inter-
ests be determined. Questions that help determine interests are, “What do I want from this
conversation?” followed with, “What makes me want that?” and “What will achieving that
help me do?” (Lewicki and Tomlinson 2014). Once all the parties gain clarity about what
they really want and why, they are better able to collaborate.
Label the Conflict Differently
The art of reframing weaves through all conflict resolution practices. Negotiators can
search for new and authentic labels for their conflict. Labels are closely tied to naming,
and blaming (Putnam 2010). In a large nonprofit organization, a manager told his team that
they were “responsible to me” above all. When the CEO heard about this, he told the man-
ager that he saw that they had a problem over “chain of command.” The manager replied,
“No, it’s a matter of loyalty.” The CEO was able to expand the concept of loyalty to the
larger organization, drop the chain of command idea (which was offensive since the orga-
nization prided itself on team development), and both were able to reframe this conflict as
one of “confusing team members about how and with whom they should communicate.”
Reframing is similar to relabeling. Language used gives conflict parties a chance to view,
or see, the conflict differently. Reframing and labeling differently are key tools for any
integrative negotiator.
Another way to reframe a conflict is to shift the level of abstraction that is used
(Putnam 2010). In one university department, two senior peer advisers began a conflict
over their advising practices. Kevin liked to take the files home to study them, marking
which courses the student advisees still needed to take to complete their majors. Kyle
accused Kevin of acting as though he were the only peer adviser, and said he showed no
respect for Kyle’s advising. The department chair urged them to talk it through (they were,
after all, communication majors!). They came up with what they determined to be a “prob-
lem with files,” rather than the relationship-level conflict with which they started. This was
both fractionation (making the conflict smaller) and a shift in the level of analysis.
Work Skillfully with Emotion
Negotiation research has expanded to include how emotion functions during negotiation ses-
sions (Shapiro 2016; Olekalns and Druckman 2014). Some evidence indicates that negotia-
tors who express anger experience better outcomes in future negotiations. Trust grows when
emotional expression is perceived as genuine and not simply strategic. Given the importance
of concern for the relationship, skillful negotiators do well to consider the centrality of any
relationship in which they experience conflict. As we have explained, venting backfires, and
strategic use of anger will usually create mistrust. You will need to decide the overall out-
comes you are wanting in a negotiation. In ongoing relationships, conflict resolution depends
on solving a problem and enhancing the relationship for further work or intimacy. Wise nego-
tiators avoid destroying or damaging a relationship to gain short-term goals.
Employ Narrative Questions
Negotiators should use narrative (story) questions rather than “yes/no” questions
(Putnam 2010). This shows a level of helpful curiosity so that the other party may be
encouraged to ask open-ended questions as well. Some examples of story questions are:
“When did you begin to sense a problem in our relationship? What was happening
before that stopped happening or started happening?”
“Please help me understand what made you lose interest in helping me with the video
portion of my research project. I thought we were on the same page, but something
happened. Tell me anything you can tell me.”
“I’d like to know what changed for you when you thought about our decision to go to
Cancun for Spring break.”
“I’ve made several suggestions for our big-ticket recreation, but none of my sugges-
tions appeal to you. I’d like to hear what you are interested in doing. It seems we
need to update with each other.”
When asking narrative or story questions, it is essential to listen and reflect back what
you are hearing. If a question is a setup for defensive argument, your conflict partner will
never again want to answer your questions.
Suggest New Rituals to Do Together

A good technique that comes from couples counseling is to ask couples who are in conflict to go
for a walk. One person talks for 5 minutes, by the clock, then the other person talks for 5 min-
utes. This is not an active listening ritual, but respectful listening. Go back and forth, employing
respectful listening until you both are ready to enter into negotiation. This “walk/talk” ritual is
especially helpful when one person talks too much and the other holds back, or when the people
are so hurt or angry that they are in a chain of back-and-forth accusations. Some couples have
internalized the ritual to the point that one will say, “We’d better go on one of our walks.”
Expand the Pie
Expanding the pie encourages new integrative outcomes because most conflicts are based
on the perception of scarce resources; expanding the resources alters the structure of the
conflict. For example, if Jane wants to go to the mountains and Sandy wants to go to the
seashore, they might collaborate to find a mountainous seashore, like the Oregon or Maine
coast. Although it won’t be the perfect mountain and the shore may have some limitations,
they will get to spend their vacation together—they have expanded the pie. Often, children
squabble with one another because of the perception that there is not enough parental care
and consideration to go around. They fight, say mean things to one another, and struggle
over the available love. As the parent, you can expand the pie. Avoid handing out love and
attention in a way that leaves out a child. A wise father can say, “Owen, I’m coaching Emelia
in soccer right now. At 3:00 we’ll take a break and you and I will practice with your bow.”
Expanding the pie means creating more resources. Resources are not infinite—the Dad will
get tired and need to do other things on his weekend—but often they can be expanded.
Application 8.7 You’ve Got to Do It!
Caitlin was an entry-level employee who had just received her BA. She worked for a veterans
program. The program was underfunded, with many demands being placed on the staff members.
The program director of the family services division asked Caitlin to design and teach a family
communication program to families with preschool children. Caitlin felt unprepared, pushed too far
and too fast, and unsupported for this high-visibility program (it would be filmed and put on public-
access TV). Although Caitlin was newly hired, she had been given a lot of responsibility and did
have legitimate power in the organization. She also wanted to work for the organization so didn’t
want to resign under the pressure of three times too much work. Two possible scenarios follow:
Competitive Mode
Program manager: Caitlin, you’ve got to do this program, and it has to be good. Our grant
funding for next year depends on delivering this service, which we said
we’d provide.
Caitlin: I’d need a master’s degree, at least, to be able to design and teach this
course. I can’t do it and keep track of the after-school program, too. I
have too little admin support and too many projects that need my atten-
tion right now. I’m so stressed out I don’t know whether I can keep on.
(continued)
Application 8.7 You’ve Got to Do It!
Program manager: I hired you to run this entire program. If you didn’t think you could do it,
you shouldn’t have applied. Drop something less important and do this.
Integrative Mode
Program manager: Caitlin, I really need to get this program on family communication done.
Our grant funding for next year depends on delivering this service, which
we said we’d provide. Could you take it on?
Caitlin: That would be a great new program. I don’t see how I can take it on.
I have to keep track of the after-school program, and there are a lot
of other things that are half-done, too. And I’m stressed out and have
almost no admin support. Besides, I don’t have the training to put this
course together. I’d need a master’s degree, at least.
Program Manager: What if I get you some staff help from social work? There’s a graduate
student over there that said he’d like to do an internship with us. Maybe
he could do the program development with you.
Caitlin: That sounds great, but I still need some admin help. Could you loan my
program someone from your office?
Program Manager: I can’t do that permanently, but you can bring work over and I’ll
delegate it.
Caitlin: OK, I’ll see what I can do. (She continues planning with the manager.)
Use Nonspecific Compensation

Nonspecific compensation is a process in which one of the parties is “paid off” with some
creative form of compensation. For instance, the manager in the previous example could
have offered extra time off after the project was finished or offered to move up Caitlin’s
evaluation, which would result in the possibility of an early promotion. If two roommates
are bargaining over use of a car, one may say, “OK, you can have my car, but I get to have
the apartment for an all-night party after graduation.” Another example is related to buy-
ing house. The buyer discovers that the owner is more interested in moving rapidly than
in receiving the stated purchase price. The buyer’s cousin owns a moving company, so he
arranges to have the house owner moved at no cost to her (he works out an arrangement
with his cousin, who will charge less than the going rate). The buyer purchases the house
for less money than was originally asked. The buyer created a form of nonspecific compen-
sation. He found some dimension that is valued by the other and made an offer that offset
some of the seller’s financial losses. Nonspecific compensation depends on listening for
the actual interests and concerns of the other party.
Trade-offs occur when one offers to trade off issues that are the top priority for the other.
The parties have to find multiple issues in the conflict (for example, time is of the essence to
you, money to him). Then, you arrange agreements so that each of you gets the top-priority
item while compromising or obliging on the lower-priority item. In one organization the
supervisor wanted an employee to spend more hours at work. The employee wanted a fairer
(to her) evaluation at the end of the year. With the help of an outside negotiator, they negoti-
ated that (1) the evaluation process would involve discussion before memos were sent and a
paper trail created, and (2) the employee would take on some extra work hours. Each received
acknowledgment of her main concern and gave on the item that was vitally important to the
other. Trade-offs are not exactly the same thing as compromising, although they are similar.
You trade one goal important to you for another that is important to the other party. A couple
might decide that they will use trade-offs when Rick says, “I want $2,000 in savings before
we spend one more dime on nonessentials.” Christie might say, “I want to be able to plan
for my sister’s wedding. I’m her maid of honor, and I’m going to have extra expenses, start-
ing next month.” They might agree to save toward the goal of $2,000 by a specific point in
time (Christie gives on this) and also make plans for the wedding (Rick gives on this). What
makes this possible? They work out a budget that they both agree to keep, something they
have not done before. They give the other what each most wants, while at the same time they
bind themselves to a budget that might feel restrictive, but worth it.
Cost cutting minimizes the other’s costs for going along with you. For example, you
want to go skiing with your friend. She is overloaded with work, so you offer to ski only
half a day and not let her incur the “cost” of missing all her work time. You might be nego-
tiating with your romantic partner about going on vacation. He is tied up and feels he can’t
take off so many days, yet you both want to vacation together. So you offer to drive your
car to the resort you wish to visit, giving you the “decompression time” that you value, and
suggest he fly to join you 2 days later. You shorten his total vacation time; yet make it pos-
sible for the two of you to vacation together at the resort you want to visit.
Bridging invents new options to meet the other side’s needs. You want to rent an
apartment, but it is too expensive. You discover that the landlord is concerned about the
appearance of the property. So you offer her a rent amount somewhat below what she wants
but agree to do 10 hours of “fix-it work” each month. She receives property improvements,
and you receive reduced rent. Everyone gains.
Let’s see how Randy and Jennifer might practice integrative bargaining instead of the
“relationship suicide” competitive approach they used first.
Application 8.8 Jennifer and Randy Try Again
After thinking over their angry and unproductive first conversations about whether to move or keep
the family where it is, they decided to take a more cooperative, integrative approach.
Jennifer: I didn’t like the way we talked with each other last weekend about the possibility
of our all moving to Denver, or whether we should stay here. I’ve been thinking.
I’m not ready to move yet, and I can’t stand the idea of giving up our connection to
our friends here. After all, we chose Laramie because of our friend group. I wish we
could do both. You know, I do miss you.
Randy: Well, that’s a relief. I love my job, but it’s not the way I want to live. I’ve been think-
ing that I could explore the idea of my working out of Laramie after I have a full
year or so with the company.
(continued)
Application 8.8 Jennifer and Randy Try Again
Jennifer: That’s a great idea. I wonder if we could afford some land here so we could build a
small vacation place. Then if we do need to move to Denver, we’d have a toehold here.
Randy: I don’t think we can afford two places, for sure.
Jennifer: No, I don’t either, but I could check out land prices. We could put the money we’d
save living in one place toward buying some land. And if you could work more
often here in the meantime, that would give us some time to look. I need to get
used to the idea, and I don’t want to sell our house at a fire-sale price.
Randy: OK, I’ll talk to my boss, and you can check out some land deals. I can stand it for a
few more months as is. It’s a relief to me for us to be thinking together again. I’ve
missed that.
What integrative techniques did Randy and Jennifer use?

In integrative negotiations, parties brainstorm to invent new and creative options to
meet everyone’s needs. For example, Sally is negotiating with her work partner. She is frus-
trated about the job not being done, to her standards, while Chuck thinks that work intrudes
too much on his personal time. So, she offers to do more of the work on the spreadsheet if
he will bring her coffee and sandwiches for lunch. Chuck gains more free time since he does
not have to take the spreadsheet project home or stay late. Sally sees the project moving
ahead, and both of them contribute to the task while maintaining their working relationship.
Bargainers who employ collaborative/integrative approaches view negotiation as com-
plex; thus, they find creative ways to “package” agreements and invent new options (Raiffa
1982). The collaborator moves from “fighting” to “conferring” (Follett 1940), assuming
that working with the other will bring joint benefits. Information serves as fact-finding
material for the bargainers rather than as a wedge that drives between the two parties.
With information, one problem solves, explores causes, and generates alternative solutions
(Lewicki and Litterer 1985).
Disadvantages of Integrative Bargaining

As with competitive tactics, integrative approaches have some disadvantages. Probably
the biggest overall difficulty is that they require “a high order of intelligence, keen percep-
tion and discrimination, and, more than all, a brilliant inventiveness” (Follett 1940, 45).
If it hasn’t been modeled in the home or on the job, integrative negotiation may require
specific training. Unless the beginning bargainer (whether an attorney, spouse, friend, or
co-worker) has some level of training, the usual approach is to equate effective bargaining
with competitive tactics. Integrative bargaining requires the same amount of emotional
intelligence as all conflict resolution. One must commit to very high standards. One disad-
vantage is that this can all seem like a lot of hard work. That is true.
According to Murray (1986), possible disadvantages of collaborative negotiation can
be described as follows:
∙ Is strongly biased toward cooperation, creating internal pressures to compromise and
accommodate that may not be in one’s best interests.
∙ Avoids confrontational strategies because they carry the risk of impasse, which is
viewed as failure. Confrontation sometimes works out well.
∙ Focuses on being sensitive to others’ perceived interests; increases vulnerability to
deception and manipulation by a competitive opponent; and increases the possibil-
ity that the settlement may be more favorable to the other side than fairness would
warrant.
∙ Increases the difficulty of establishing definite aspiration levels and bottom lines
because of the reliance on qualitative (value-laden) goals.
∙ Requires substantial skill and knowledge of the process to do well.
∙ Requires strong confidence in one’s own assessment powers (perception) regarding
the interests and needs of the other side and the other’s payoff schedule (184).
Integrative negotiations are not easily used in every conflict. They require consider-
able skill on the part of the negotiators, the process takes longer, and everyone needs to
strive to keep the negotiations from disintegrating into a win/lose approach.
The Language of Integration

As has been true of other conflict resolution processes throughout this book, no specific
set of techniques will assure integrative bargaining. Collaboration is both a mindset and
a set of techniques. If one does not believe that energetic cooperation will provide bet-
ter solutions than competitive techniques, all the language of integration that could be
memorized will not ultimately produce a collaborative outcome. Sometimes, however, you
may get stuck looking for the right phrase to help a negotiation move toward an integra-
tive outcome. If so, consider some of the following phrases. Beside each phrase, put the
number of the principled negotiation idea and the key word for the Core Concern that the
phrase addresses. There may be several.
The Language and the

Application 8.9
Principles of Negotiation
This is a problem you and I haven’t had to face before. I’m sure we can work it out. What is it that
you are most hoping for?
Let’s figure out where we agree, and that will give us a base to work from.
I’d like to postpone making a decision about filing a grievance until our next meeting. Today
I want to explore all the options that are available to us in addition to filing a grievance. How
does that sound to you?
I can’t be satisfied with getting my way if you’re disgruntled. Let’s get an example of market
value from an objective source. I know this is difficult, but we can work it out.
I can understand why you want to “split the difference,” but let’s try for some creative
alternatives.
I certainly appreciate your stance. Let’s also talk about what I need to be satisfied.
(continued)
The Language and the

Application 8.9
Principles of Negotiation
Your threat tells me how important this issue is to you, but it will work better with me not to
threaten. Let’s back this up and come at it another way.
I don’t see any conflict in both of us getting more of what we want, but we have been acting
as if what we each get, the other loses.
I really do want a fair and durable settlement for both of us. That requires, of course, more
direct information about what we each want. Let’s explore that awhile.
I will discuss with you as long as it takes to reach a settlement that will work for both of us.
Yes, I see that you think that is the best solution. Remember, however, that there are two of us
here. Let’s see if both of us can be satisfied with an outcome.
Many people approach negotiations, at least at the beginning, from a competitive frame
of mind—assuming both sides have to lose part of the pie. The competitive or integrative
approaches are more a function of the bargainers than of any other factors. In fact, you can
be in a negotiation in which one person takes an integrative and the other a competitive
stance (Walker 1988). If you take a competitive approach, whether you are negotiating
about how to spend the evening with a friend or how much to offer on a house, the negotia-
tion process will probably be a competitive, win/lose experience. On the other hand, if you
stick firmly to an integrative approach, you will find creative options that someone with
a competitive approach simply would not find. Creative options are often available but
unless the negotiators believe them possible and work to jointly produce those options, the
negotiations will begin and end on a win/lose footing. Having had experience negotiating
and serving as third-party interveners, we (the authors) are always gratified by how many
creative, jointly satisfying options are available and constantly are reminded of how dif-
ficult they are for the parties to initially see.
Integrative language strategies are generally not perceived as genuinely integrative
if the intent is still, as in a competitive system, to promote self-interest at the expense of
the other (Kolb and Putnam 1997; Putnam 1996). Kolb and Putnam rightly point out the
difference between a pseudo-relational approach used for personal gain, which is manipu-
lative, and true collaboration. As long as predetermined goals benefiting only the self are
pursued, the underlying assumptions of both competitive and collaborative modes remain
self-interest and winning.
The following case gives you an opportunity to apply ideas about competitive and
integrative negotiation.
Application 8.10 The Rainbow Development Water Problem
A group of summer homeowners in the high mountains of Colorado faces an ongoing problem with
their water well, which keeps testing as polluted, thus making it necessary for the residents to boil
(continued)
or buy their water. Recently, some of the elected officials of the volunteer board authorized a road
to be built so heavy equipment could reach the wellhead and the well could be dug out and rebuilt.
The road was built through wetlands, which raised some federal legal problems, and through a
pristine meadow cherished by some of the residents as a quiet, beautiful spot at the end of the
property. The road goes through commonly owned property, skirting the edge of privately owned
lots. Three factions formed, and full-scale conflict has erupted, with letters, private conversations,
procedural challenges, content arguments, relationship destruction, and face-saving struggles
going on at a high level of intensity. Thirty-five or so families are involved. The homeowners are a
long-standing group of friends and acquaintances who have considerable monetary and emotional
investment in the property along with dramatically different ecological, political, financial, and com-
munity values.
1. The “water first” group: This group consists primarily of engineers, scientists, builders, and prac-
tical people who are sick and tired of dealing with a half-solution to the water problem year after
year. They want to get a new well, install purification systems if they are needed, and assess
the membership for what is required. They rely on scientific studies of the water quality as a
database. In their view, the road was simply a means to an important end. They are convinced
that their mandate was clear: to provide potable water for the group. They can’t understand the
outrage of the second group. Many members of this group have volunteered countless hours
through the years for the practical maintenance of the roads, water system, fences, and govern-
ing system. This group is concerned with content goals and face-saving. They argue that the
content goals are the most important and that they did what they had to do (face-saving).
2. The “road has to go” group: This group consists of a few older homeowners and their adult
children. The view of this group is that environmental concerns are primary. They will not
tolerate compromise about the sensitive wetlands along the stream and feel outraged at
what they perceive as the destruction of the most beautiful area of common property. They
think the board acted without proper authorization by the membership and feel strongly that
not only should the road never have been built but that it must be taken out and the area
reclaimed. They prefer any solution, including boiling water for drinking, to the degradation
of the environment. Many of this group will be second-generation homeowners when they
inherit the property from their parents. However, these group members have no vote in the
association, since only property owners can vote. This group as a whole is concerned about
appropriate process and has strongly held content goals.
3. The “we simply have to live with it” group: This group sees itself as the middle group be-
tween two extremes. Many of these people feel disappointed or angry about the gravel road
and the fact that the water problem still is not solved. They want to support the elected board
but don’t like all the conflict and alienation in what used to be a very close and friendly group,
which had potlucks, birthday celebrations, and outings together. Now that the road is in, they
think it should be accepted and used to solve the water problem. This group is concerned
with relationships and face-saving for the board. They keep their private opinions, whatever
they might be, to themselves. They look to the future.
(continued)
Now that you have read “The Rainbow Development Water Problem,” answer these
questions:
• Specify (1) competitive and (2) integrative approaches to the problem, from each of the three
groups.
• How can concerns be addressed, relationships be enhanced, and solutions be found?
• What communicative moves from each of the three groups would enhance rather than destroy
the ongoing relationships?
• If you were a negotiator for the homeowners association, how might you approach the
problem?
• Role-play an integrative approach to the problem, with representatives of the three groups
discussing (without a negotiator).
Competitive and Integrative Phases

Negotiations are characteristically complex. Early in negotiations, it is common for the par-
ticipants to have a fixed-sum assumption. Bargainers can, regardless of their initial positions
and approaches, move to integrative, or collaborative, outcomes (Gulliver 1979; Lewicki and
Litterer 1985; Tutzauer and Roloff 1988). Many negotiations range between cooperative and
competitive phases of negotiation, often returning to collaborative phases when someone
stresses the gains to be had by both sides (Holmes 1992; Popple 1984). Sometimes dyads
will reach an impasse, return to earlier phases of negotiations, and seem to regress (Holmes
1992). An example of “impasse dyads” is often found when couples are negotiating details
of their divorce. The couple will stay stuck on one issue, such as how to work out holiday
access to the children, then get so angry they will try to redo all the earlier negotiation, even
agreements that had been problem free, such as division of furniture or where each partner
would live. Skillful third-party help can often enable the couple to move out of the impasse.
No matter how far down the wrong road you go, you can always turn back.
The central finding from phase research is that successful negotiations eventually move
toward collaborative, or integrative, processes (Holmes 1992; Gulliver 1979). Integrative and
competitive processes can be seen as intertwined—as the participants utilize more competi-
tive approaches, a natural tension builds to move toward collaboration as long as the parties
stay invested in the dispute (Putnam 1986, 1988). The bargainers can be seen as moving
from differentiation—stressing their differences with each other, attacking each other’s posi-
tions, and venting emotions—to integration, or collaboration, in which the negotiators adopt
a problem-solving orientation. These processes would look, sequentially, like this:
1. Extreme statements of positions
2. Clashes about positions
3. Deemphasis of differences and decreased use of antagonistic tactics (Jones 1988, 472)
An almost identical set of stages also has been specified:

1. Lengthy public orations characterized by a high degree of “spirited” conflict
2. Tactical maneuvers and arguments for and against proposals
3. Reducing alternatives to formal agreements (Putnam and Jones 1982a)
Note that these phases have been used in negotiations that resulted in agreements. Also,
they are more characteristic of explicit bargaining situations, such as negotiations over
contracts. There simply has not been enough research on implicit, informal bargaining pro-
cesses to specify the phases they involve. Clearly, however, successful negotiations typi-
cally arrive at workable agreements by going through collaborative phases.
One’s choice of negotiation strategies sets forces in motion that may be difficult to
alter. For example, using pressure tactics increases competitiveness (Tutzauer and Roloff
1988); spirals of competitiveness tend to bring impasse (Putnam 1988); competitive strat-
egies lessen satisfaction with the process (Putnam and Folger 1988); and a competitive
orientation coupled with time pressure secures poorer agreements (Carnevale and Lawler
1986). Basically, cooperative and competitive climates are self-reinforcing—competition
encourages more competition and collaboration brings collaboration in return (Folger,
Poole, and Stutman 2004, 2008; Carnevale and Lawler 1986; Pace 1988).
How, then, can one move toward integrative approaches during the negotiation
process? Stick to principled negotiation, rely on the Core Concerns, stay with your
chosen role, and maintain optimism that a positive solution can be found. Once you
begin succeeding while bargaining in an integrative way, your hope and confidence will
grow. In negotiation, as in all of conflict resolution, we have to learn to do what comes
unnaturally.
Summary
Negotiation is one mechanism for solving ongo- communication patterns, and downsides associated
ing conflicts with others and allows us to resolve with each type of negotiation.
everyday conflicts peacefully. The negotiation path Principled negotiation is an integrative approach
to conflict management recognizes the stake that that stresses seven principles for successful nego-
all parties have in their joint dispute. Negotiation tiation. These principles rest upon five Core Con-
occurs in everyday life, as well as in structured pub- cerns. We present reasons why using the preceding
lic arenas such as labor–management bargaining. approaches are so difficult. We discuss both the mind-
Each culture utilizes negotiation in diverse ways. set and specific words for being integrative because
Several different examples of negotiation in differ- often people have difficulty speaking in an integrative
ent cultures were presented. way. We conclude the chapter showing that nego-
At the heart of all negotiations are consider- tiations often pass between phases—beginning with
ations of power. We can equalize power through a competitive tone and concluding with an integrative
destructive means or by effective argumentation. one. Successful negotiators in everyday life eventually
The two major types of negotiations are (1) com- cooperate/integrate with the other party, manifesting a
petitive and (2) integrative. There are assumptions, relational orientation.
Key Terms
negotiation 257 firm flexibility 273 trade-offs 280
win/lose perspective 264 even playing field 276 cost cutting 281
competitive negotiation 265 narrative (story) questions 278 bridging 281
integrative negotiation 271 expanding the pie 279 language of integration 283
principled negotiation 272 nonspecific compensation 280 phases of negotiation 286
Review Questions
1. What is the place of negotiation in everyday 12. What are the seven elements to principled
life? negotiation?
2. Explain how negotiation is part of conflict 13. What are some techniques used in integrative
resolution. bargaining? Be able to identify and apply these
3. Define negotiation. techniques.
4. How does negotiation fit between avoidance 14. What are the Core Concerns, and why are they
and domination? so difficult to put in place?
5. What impacts do our cultures have on 15. Why are interests so important?
negotiation? 16. What is the difference between positions and
6. List destructive ways to equalize power. interests?
7. List constructive ways to equalize power. 17. What is a BATNA and what makes it impor-
8. How are arguments used as part of construc- tant in negotiation?
tive negotiation? 18. List some questions you can use to find
9. List the assumptions and communication ele- interests.
ments of competitive negotiation. 19. What might be some multiple interests you
10. Describe the assumptions and communication have in a current conflict?
elements of integrative negotiation. 20. Give some examples of collaborative language.
11. List some integrative communication moves. 21. How do conflicts move through competitive
and collaborative phases?
Chapter 9
Third-Party Intervention
The Need for Third Parties

Conflicts present so many challenges that we turn to others for help. When you and your
romantic partner are not talking, or at the other extreme, are yelling at one another, outside
help may be needed. If your roommate and you have been arguing about rent payments
for weeks on end, it may be time for outside help. If you are enmeshed in a family dispute
that drags on for years, you will benefit from intervention. If you endure a situation at
work where you continually struggle with your supervisor over your job assignments, it is
time to ask for help. When talk is sarcastic, indirect, or defensive, special coaching may be
needed. When you and your partner love each other but keep getting caught in the same
destructive spirals, you should consider third-party intervention. Acquiring competent
third-party help can stop destructive spirals.
When we experience conflict, we can turn to friends, advisors, pastors, parents, co-
workers, human resource personnel, coaches, counselors, mediators, or lawyers. Third-
party assistance may also be provided by fact finders, process consultants, go-betweens,
ombudspersons, managers, conciliators, group facilitators, friends of the court, arbitrators,
or diplomats—anyone who can help (Folger, Scott, and Poole 2013, 253). Communication
students, social workers, psychologists, attorneys, managers, and people in all human stud-
ies majors can train themselves to become agents of intervention. Third-party help for you
or others may be appropriate in situations such as these:
∙ Your roommate stops paying her share of the rent.
∙ A friend keeps using your clothes without permission.
∙ Your sister won’t pick up or return calls or texts. She made bitter comments the last
time you were together and you can’t get to her to try to make things right.
∙ You and your romantic partner are separating but neither of you say you want to.
∙ You are a teacher and see your elementary students fighting during recess.
∙ Your workgroup stops meeting and team members do not reply to e-mails.
∙ An employee is injured on the job and wants health benefits.
∙ Violence is beginning to erupt between two young men (Funk, Elliott, Bechtoldt,
Pasold, and Tsavoussis 2003).
∙ Students are being harassed and sexually bullied (Berry 2016; Newman 2004).
∙ Two ranchers have an ongoing dispute over water rights, affecting the entire
community.
∙ A customer tries to return a defective product, but the retailer refuses to accept it.
∙ Only one worker, a relative of the supervisor, gets a raise. The rest of the employees
protest by filing a grievance.
∙ An employee is fired and seeks redress.
∙ A couple is divorcing but wants to cooperate for the sake of the children.
These situations call for a variety of third-party interventions, ranging from informal
to formal intervention. You might become involved in making a decision about third-party
intervention by (1) asking for third-party assistance for yourself or (2) helping a friend
or co-worker find appropriate third parties (Brandimonte, Ferrante, and Bianco 2010) or
(3) acting as a third party, after appropriate training.
Third-party activity is a normal part of everyday life. You may have a friend like
Angela, for example, who often helps other friends to “talk it out” when there is a com-
munication problem. The third party may be a trained professional such as a counselor
or mediator. Teachers separate students on the playground, ministers and counselors help
families through crises, dormitory resident advisors help students, and mediators help mar-
ried couples separate and divorce. Lawyers, judges, probation officers, hearings officers,
union representatives, professional meeting facilitators, and coaches all help people work
through their conflicts. In this chapter, we will provide an overview of (1) informal and
(2) formal intervention into disputes. For informal interventions (like helping friends,
work associates, or family members), we will supply cautions about entering others’ dis-
putes and some guidelines for success. For formal interventions (using coaches, mediators,
counselors, arbitrators, and the courts, for example), we will acquaint you with the various
approaches so you can be an informed consumer of such services, or include this work in
your career path.
Advantages of Using Skilled Third Parties

A skilled third party is someone who is trained in intervention and does not have a vested
interest in a specific outcome. Whether informal or formal, the goal of all intervention is to
transform the conflict elements. The transformation may take many forms. It may
∙ Change the style of expression in the conflict.
∙ Alter the degree of interdependence between the parties.
∙ Change their perceptions or their goals so they are not seen as incompatible.
∙ Balance the power.
∙ Modify the actual or perceived scarcity of resources.
∙ Adjust the actual or perceived interference by the opposing parties.
∙ Arrive at solutions to problems that caused the conflict.
Skillful intervention transforms the conflict so that issues can be put to rest and people
can move on. After third-party intervention, co-workers may be able to speak to the boss
directly instead of forming coalitions, and the boss may agree to give feedback in person
instead of in writing. Parents may agree to help their 18-year-old daughter go to college
in a different state, or a conflict over scarce parking space may be accurately understood
as a relational conflict rather than a content conflict (parking space). Former spouses may
solve disputes over child support without filing another court action. A judge in a small
claims court or court dispute may refer parties to a mediator before deciding on an action
(Kressel 2014). Conflicts may be prevented in addition to specific conflicts being resolved.
Emotional and financial costs reduce with skillful intervention.
Informal Help
Most everyday conflicts are settled out of court and without the aid of a professional
helper but with the assistance of friends, neighbors, supervisors, peers, and other natural
helpers (Johnson and Keedy 2010). These informal interventions serve “to interrupt a
self-maintaining or escalating-malevolent cycle in one way or another and to initiate a
de-escalating-benevolent cycle” (Walton 1969).
Informal third parties enter conflicts through diverse routes. A staff person may say,
“What would you think about coming to the meeting Tuesday with Julie and Chris? I think
we could use your level head.” Parties may ask for help indirectly. A friend may call to
discuss a potential romantic breakup and you guess he wants you to help out. Children, for
instance, sense that parents (responsive parents, that is) will step into the role of third party
when they are bullied on the playground, when “Jill won’t give me back my teddy bear,” or
when big brother picks on them behind their parents’ backs. The complaint, accompanied
by anger or tears, serves as a request for help. The following are indirect cues indicating
that your help may be needed:
Indirectly Asking for Help
1. A person seeks you out, and begins to cry or curse while describing a situation.
2. A person shares private information with you.
3. A person indicates that a crucial decision is impending.
4. A person makes you understand that his or her life is not smooth, that distress is present, or
that things seem out of control.
5. A person says, “No one knows just how bad my supervisor is.” (Johnson and Keedy 2010)
A teacher may notice a student, usually happy and in love with life, talks with a very
negative tone. The student may say, in a dejected tone, “They won’t hire me. They don’t
think I have any useful experience.” She may be indirectly asking for the teacher’s help—
hoping a phone call or letter of recommendation would help her get hired.
Conditions for Helping

If you want to help people resolve their conflicts, you must choose when to intervene, what
your role will be, what your intervention style will be, and what skills you will bring to
the conflict (Noer 2010). Before you make a commitment to help, answer the following
questions:
1. Are they ready for a third party? What evidence do you have to indicate readiness?
2. How do you know that they want you to help?
3. What skills prepare you to help them (Hill et al. 2008)? Can you best help by refer-
ring them to someone else?
4. Are you biased, committed to one of the parties, grinding your own ax, or unable to
help because of time, position, or other matters?
5. Can you say no? If not, then you are probably too involved in the conflict to be an
effective helper.
Once you have answered these questions, take the time to think about the conse-
quences of your intervention. Remember, someone else’s problem is not necessarily your
problem—you have a choice. If you think you have no choice, you cannot be useful as
an informal intervener. For example, many people get involved in conflicts between their
parents only to discover the futility of trying to solve marital problems not of their making.
If you do not want to get involved but think that you should, your lack of enthusiasm will
result in lessened energy, frustration with how hard it is for them to change, and ineffective
intervention. If you don’t want to help, avoid becoming involved.
If you do choose to enter the conflict, however informal or nonspecific that role may
be, take special care to retain your neutrality. Informal third parties often take sides (Van de
Vliert 1981, 1985). If one of the parties succeeds in allying with you, the resulting alliance
lessens the other side’s power in the conflict and creates a new issue in the conflict—that
of unfair bonding. Consultants to organizations are trained to avoid such biased behavior,
but friends and relatives may slip into taking sides only to find that their “help” makes the
conflict worse. Siding with one party has these effects:
∙ Siding implies that the outsider adopts the win/lose thinking of the principal parties,
which reinforces the destructive effects of such thinking.
∙ Siding creates a winner (the chosen party) and a loser (the rejected party), causing
escalation by the rejected party.
∙ Siding increases the number of conflict participants.
∙ By adding additional unbalanced perceptions, siding complicates the conflict
issues.
∙ The siding outsider increases the stake of the parties in the conflict outcome.
(Adapted from Van de Vliert 1981, 497–498)
Siding with one conflict party, although not wise for an intervener, does have its place.
If your close friend is breaking off a relationship with her fiancé, you may choose to side
with her to give her support. Anything else would be unrealistic. However, you should
be aware that siding with one of the conflict parties precludes you from being an effec-
tive neutral helper; you will become an additional party to the conflict. There is only one
exception to this—when you are formally coaching someone behind the scenes, which we
will discuss later.
When you refuse to take sides you can be an effective change agent. For example, a
new hospital employee was approached by people on opposite sides of a conflict about
nursing shift assignments. One side wanted nursing shifts decided by seniority and the
other side by experience. The new nurse found himself being pushed toward the middle—
both sides wanted him to persuade the other side of the rightness of their position. He
wisely told all parties, “I am too new to have an informed opinion. Besides, I value my
relationships with all of you. I prefer not to be involved with this problem.” On a univer-
sity campus, a faculty member’s neutrality set the stage for an effective intervention. The
faculty member heard from a student who wanted to graduate early, but another faculty
member refused to consider her petition to waive or substitute a required course. The neu-
tral faculty member offered to intervene by privately asking the resistant faculty member to
discuss the issue in a meeting. The intervening professor did not take sides; she provided
a forum for handling the matter creatively, and the student was able to graduate at the pre-
ferred time (Harrison 2007).
If you are going to intervene, clarify your new role and how it differs from your usual
role with the conflict parties. If you have been a buddy, supervisor, romantic partner, co-
worker, or casual acquaintance, any role change needs to be negotiated. For example, a
14-year-old girl, Toni, lived with her foster parents, Mr. and Mrs. Black, a couple in their
mid-50s. The state children’s service worker, Anne, found placements for Toni, certi-
fied potential foster homes for her, and provided her with ongoing counseling. Mr. and
Mrs. Black began to quarrel about providing continuing care for Toni, since their own
children were out of the home and they were beginning to want time without children.
Mrs. Black wanted to wait until Toni graduated from high school to request another place-
ment, whereas Mr. Black wanted Toni to move during the summer. Anne was able to act
as a third party to their conflict, after making clear that her first loyalty was to Toni’s best
interests. Since all three people agreed on the interests, they were able, with Anne’s help,
to find a solution to the conflict. If Anne had not clarified her role, which involved not
taking sides with either parent but keeping Toni’s interests prominent, both parents would
have tried to form a coalition with Anne.
Cautions about Informal Intervention

Several cautions are in order about helping others in conflict:
1. Be certain the parties want help in managing their conflict. Did they agree for you to
help them, or did you get involved because you felt uncomfortable?
2. Avoid becoming “the enemy.” The parties might temporarily bond with each other
and attack you. Remember, you are entering an already existing system. Your focus,
even if you are taking an informal role, is the relationship. If you become a common
enemy by pushing the parties too hard, they will “gang up” on you.
3. You must constantly remain aware of coalitions. Any time a third party enters
into an existing relationship, the relationship changes. Once you coalesce with one
person, you lose your helpful role and change the relationship between the two par-
ties. Because you cannot predict ahead of time exactly what will happen with your
involvement, you must monitor the interactions to watch for shifts in coalitions. If
you begin thinking, “No wonder he is struggling with her; she is completely unrea-
sonable,” you have formed a coalition and lost your effectiveness.
4. Once the work is completed, the third party exits from the system. The goal is to train
the parties to manage their own relations. A helper who does not work himself or
herself out of a job is not doing the job properly; the parties must become indepen-
dent of the third party. A helper who improves the parties’ relationship and helps
them solve the topic issues gives the conflicting parties a real gift.
Application 9.1 My Informal Role
1. List skills you have developed that are useful for helping others. What skills do you lack at this point?
2. Discuss when you have effectively helped others.
3. List the times you have tried to help others and your efforts backfired.
a. How did the parties ask, directly or indirectly, for help?
b. What role did you negotiate ahead of time?
c. To whom were you closest? Whom did you know the best?
d. What process did they agree to before you intervened?
e. How could you tell that your “help” was actually making things worse?
4. What did you learn from those experiences about being an informal third party?
Formal Intervention
The Intervention Continuum
Formal intervention requires specific training or education (Smaby and Maddux 2010; Hill
et al. 2008). Usually, in Western culture, the formal third party is paid, such as in coun-
seling, mediation, legal interventions, or organizational consultation. However, in some
cultures and subcultures of the United States, formal intervention is not compensated.
Native American, Cambodian, Hawaiian, Malaysian, and many other cultures use formal
intervention to restore peace and justice in the culture. Some religious organizations use a
form of unpaid intervention, such as convening a group to decide or advise on an issue. In
mainstream Western culture we no longer have access to such traditional councils. Thus,
we turn to paid, formal interventions.
Formal intervention modes differ according to the degree to which conflict parties
determine the final outcome. In some forms of third-party intervention, the conciliator
serves as a facilitator to parties who make their own decisions, whereas other forms impose
a resolution to the conflict upon the parties.
Modes of intervention
High ∙ Conflict coaching
∙ Facilitation
Degree to which ∙ Mediation
the conflicting ∙ Counseling and therapy
parties determine ∙ Organizational development
the solutions to
∙ Conciliation
their conflicts
∙ Quasi-judicial bodies
∙ Informal tribunals
∙ Arbitration of all types
Low ∙ Criminal and civil justice system
In many interventions, combinations of these approaches are used. For instance, both
mediation and arbitration can be used by the third party. Similarly, contracts between labor
and management often specify a sequence of steps such as (1) negotiation, (2) mediation,
and, if necessary, (3) arbitration. Divorce mediation sometimes uses arbitration mandated
by a judge.
When the Parties Decide

Coaching
Conflict coaching is a dispute resolution option involving one disputant and one con-
flict professional. A general definition of conflict coaching describes the process in which
a coach and client communicate one-on-one for the purpose of developing the client’s
conflict-related understanding, interaction strategies, and interaction skills (Jones and
Brinkert 2008, 5). Coaching is now an established ADR field, growing in its use, because
it is flexible, tailored to the needs of organizations, and prepares clients to manage their
own conflicts in the future without needing the help of outside experts (Brinkert 2016).
Coaching helps those who are unable or unwilling to engage in mediation (Wildflower
and Brenna 2011), or for those who will be involved in conflict resolution in an organiza-
tion but do not yet have the skills to practice conflict resolution at a high level. Coaching
requires a systems level of thinking and is designed to empower clients to handle conflict.
Further, it can be integrated with other approaches. For example, many parties cannot go
directly into mediation—they need coaching behind the scenes before entering into media-
tion or other forms of resolution. Often, an organizational manager will ask a coach to
work directly with disputing employees, hoping to avoid firing one or the other, or dealing
with a formal grievance.
Requests for communication workshops often come to communication, organizational
development, and legal professionals. Managers often ask for training when they would be
better off requesting coaching. When you asked to provide training, consider the following
questions before you decide at what level of intervention to respond:
∙ Are you concerned about one or more people in conflict rather than the whole
system?
∙ Has the person requesting a workshop already decided to terminate someone’s
employment?
∙ Is a grievance or legal action in process?
∙ Would the person requesting training consider interviews with key people before
deciding how to intervene?
A relational coaching model, consistent with the principles we have outlined in this
book, is thoroughly described by Jones and Brinkert (2008). In their model, the coach
helps people with identity, emotion, and power. The conflict coach hears the stories (usu-
ally one on one), suggests possible conflict resolution approaches, and works with each
client to tailor approaches to their style and personal preference. Conflict coaching fits the
skills you are developing as you study communication and conflict.
A second approach to conflict coaching, the CINERGY model, is described by Noble
(2011). The International Coaching Federation serves to set standards for conflict coaches
as well as certify members. Both models emphasize the connection between conflict
coaching and integrated conflict management systems (see Brinkert 2016 for an overview
of the conflict coaching field). The trend in conflict coaching is that the coach serves as an
organizational consultant, although working with one or two people at a time. Coaching is
one part of many systems of conflict management, from training, to prevention, facilita-
tion, informal mediation, and formal mediation in teams.
Listening deeply and well to the story of the conflict, asking open-ended questions,
and making nonevaluative comments forms the crucial first step in coaching. Often, the
process of listening and being heard de-escalates conflict. We suggest interviewing each
party to the conflict separately, with a confidentiality contract (you do not report back to
the manager, maintaining privacy for the individuals). Then write themes that you analyze
from the interviews. Present these themes to the parties as a basis for tailoring communica-
tion skills and approaches to the parties.
In our own work as mediator, conflict coach, conciliation professional, and thera-
pist, we are often asked to coach people through a conflict situation. For example, a good
friend, Peter, has two sons who are entering their teen years. Peter’s wife died a year ago;
one of his wife’s sisters, Julianne, explodes at him, blames him for his wife’s death (she had
cancer from unknown causes), and sends him vitriolic e-mails. Peter asked for coaching on
how to respond to Julianne. He is not interested in any joint meetings with her or mediation
or counseling—he just wants to know how to deal with her anger in the most productive
way. Such is the province of coaching—to help Peter deal with the ongoing dispute in the
extended family.
The coach helps parties deal with strong emotions (their own and others’ feelings), and
assists the person with a midlevel responses to emotion, whether he or she meets with the
other party or not. Take the case of the new CEO of a large company. When James gave
his “all hands” speech (a presentation to the entire company) at the beginning of his term,
people all politely applauded and went on their way. Then, a day later, a long-term and
competent employee sent him an e-mail saying, “Ah, what a bunch of B.S.—you will be just
like all the other CEOs we have had here.” As James later said, “He acted like there wasn’t
a human being on the other end of the e-mail.” James asked for coaching help. After get-
ting all the details, the coach suggested that James make sure he was in a reflective, open
emotional mood, then walk to the other building, and knock on the employee’s door. When
the employee saw James at his door, he almost had a heart attack—and jumped back. James
then said, “I could tell from your e-mail that you are concerned about this company. I would
like to hear more about what works and doesn’t work for you here.” The employee talked for
almost an hour. Then, 5 years later, that same employee stood up after another “all hands”
presentation by James and said, “When James first came here I thought he was just like all
the rest. I have come to realize that he has a good system in place and really cares about
employees—thanks, James.” Such is the potential power of coaching. The employee might
have formed coalitions and sabotaged James and his new approaches; instead he became a
valuable change agent in the organization.
Coaching is one way to bring a form of alternative dispute resolution to individuals in
organizations or families. Key people who manage others, or serve as the communication
link in families, then spread the positive effects of what they learn. In this way, coaching
for conflict resolution differs from counseling, in that the purpose of coaching is to spread
high-level communication skills through the system.
Mike is a recent college graduate, in his first job. He recently found out that his father
remarried suddenly, without introducing his new wife to his two grown sons and their
wives. Mike came into counseling for one main reason—he wanted to decide how to deal
with his father and his new wife. His dad pressured him to visit over Christmas, but Mike
felt angry and uncomfortable. Previous conversations with his father, on the phone, ended
up with his dad telling him to “deal with it” and stop acting like a child. The counselor, who
knew this would be a short-term coaching relationship, helped Mike decide what to do, for
now. Mike decided to write his father a letter and tell him that he was not going to come for
Christmas, and that he felt pressured to just go along with a decision that felt disrespectful
to him and his brother. Mike continued, in the letter, to say that he agreed that his father
had the right to do as he pleased, but that Mike also had the right to wait until he felt more
comfortable with his dad’s decision, and when he did not feel pressured. He ended by say-
ing that he wanted an ongoing relationship with his father, and might come to like and get
to know his wife, but that the timing would need to be something they all decided together.
Mike was not interested in devoting more time and money in trying to understand his father
or his own reactions. He wanted to deal honestly with the present situation without cutting
off future contact. He hoped the letter would be a start in the right direction.
Prerequisite skills for effective coaching are explained in the Comprehensive Coach-
ing Model (Jones and Brinkert 2008). They are the foundational skills presented through-
out this book, such as emotional intelligence, listening openly, reframing (like the coach
helped James do), and supporting the identity of the other.
A coach looks for opportunities to teach, solve problems, and transform conflicts.
Coaches do not side with any of the parties. Advice is focused on how to communicate, not
what the specific resolution should be. Coaching helps people learn to be collaborative. It is
a powerful set of techniques for helping parties work with conflict, with or without facing
the other party. Coaching is becoming a recognized profession, with certification programs
and supervision ensuring quality of coaches (Wildflower and Brenna 2011).
Application 9.2 Coaching People in a System
A communication coach was asked to provide help for a large nonprofit organization. The CEO told
the coach that a problem person, Ted, was closed to feedback, did not share his opinions when
asked, and played favorites, especially with young, attractive women in the organization. The CEO
asked the coach to interview all six members of the management team. Everyone told the coach
that, indeed, Ted was closed to feedback and withheld his opinions. Ted, however, told the coach
that the senior members of the leadership team did not appreciate his mentoring of young mem-
bers of the organization. He felt he was providing an important service in an organization that had
a lot of turnover. He agreed that he kept his opinions to himself—he felt he was not respected for
the work he did. The coach noticed that almost all the new hires were young women, so maybe
Ted should not be viewed as preferential toward young females. As the coach, how would you help
with the following issues?
• Letting the team know that Ted would like to be respected for the mentoring he did, as well as
his other work
(continued)
Application 9.2 Coaching People in a System
• Letting Ted know that the rest of the team wants to hear more from him
• How would you create a more open and safe environment for all six people?
• How would you model feedback to both Ted and the other leaders, using descriptive and not
evaluative communication?
• How would you defuse the issue of sexist communication?
• How would you coach other leaders to invite Ted to tell them what he thinks?
Notice that the role of the communication coach is facilitating communication. You avoid
the role of “expert,” or falling into the role of counselor or mediator. For instance in this case, you
would be falling into a typical trap if you assume that Ted has a personality problem and needs to
be referred to a counselor.
Counseling
Individuals, couples, and families often seek the services of a professional counselor or
therapist to help them resolve disputes. The counselor must have certain, usually licensed,
credentials and is paid for her or his services. Counseling might entail (1) meeting with
one person individually and/or (2) meeting with two people or an entire family system. The
counselor focuses on all the issues at stake—the emotional and relational issues in addition
to the topic dispute, which often simply serves as the “presenting problem.” Sometimes,
the conflicting parties, such as a committed couple, want to move to forgiveness and rec-
onciliation, but not always.
The counselor might help the parties with personal issues and relational issues.
Depending on the counselor and the parties to the conflict, the focus may include psycho-
logical issues such as depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety issues, personality disorders, or
substance abuse. The counselor might stress how personal issues intersect with relation-
ship issues. A professional counselor usually does not control the conversation process in
the same way as an arbitrator or mediator might, yet has the task of helping the individuals
and the system attain improved functioning, insight, and prevention of future conflict.
When might you seek counseling for a conflict situation? When your own feelings
are so highly engaged that you cannot be productive, or use effective communication, you
might seek help. When you are very low power in a relationship you may need an advocate.
A counselor can help you with self-confidence. When you are suffering emotionally or
relationally, and feel isolated, you might benefit from professional counseling. When you
want to get counseling help for relationship aspects, remember that you do not have the
power to coerce others to enter counseling with you. You can only invite them, and con-
tinue to seek help for yourself.
Counseling can be similar to conflict coaching. A counselor who is educated in con-
flict resolution and communication skills can suggest midlevel approaches to parties in
conflict, can coach the client on language that will help the client confront or approach
another, and can listen with the intent to defuse harsh startups, defensiveness, blaming,
contempt, and criticism. If you are the client, it will be helpful for you to tell the counselor
what you would most appreciate exploring. A woman came into counseling because she
and her husband were at an impasse about buying a specific house. The woman wanted to
locate her business in one level of the new house, and enjoy renovating the whole house.
The husband continued to say, “We don’t need all that space, and it’s too expensive.” They
had reached impasse about the issue, and the woman was extremely frustrated. Rather than
initiating couples counseling, the counselor suggested approaches to the wife that might
open up the conflict they were having. She suggested:
∙ Ask for an open conversation, a dialogue, in which each listens.
∙ Suggest exploring the pros and cons of buying the property.
∙ Tell the spouse what the decision means to each.
∙ Use the metacommunicative statement, “I would appreciate your listening to my
point of view. When you say we don’t need all that space, and I have a plan for the
space, I feel dismissed?” (An X-Y-Z statement.)
∙ Ask for a sit-down meeting with each other about their finances.
After several conversations, the couple agreed to walk through the property without
the Realtor, discussing how they might use the space. They negotiated with each other
on a price for buying that would work and beyond which they would not go. The woman
reported back to the counselor that she felt relieved, close to her spouse, and that they were
no longer at odds. Coaching in the context of counseling worked well for this couple.
Counselors sometimes serve as members of a team to help family members solve
problems, usually involving children, when the parents divorce. The interdisciplinary
settlement conference draws on the skills of counselors and attorneys, delegated through
the court system, to help parents solve problems without further court involvement
(Shulmeyer, Adams, and Wood 2015). The settlement conference is one more example of
integrated conflict management systems.
More people want to become mediators than there is demand for mediation (Brubaker,
Noble, Fincher, Park, and Press 2014). Mediator skills remain essential for those wanting
to work in the conflict management field as professionals. Keep in mind that the field of
Alternative Dispute Resolution is moving rapidly toward integrated conflict management
approaches, rather than relying on separate fields of practice. As you read about mediation,
imagine how the skills of mediation might be employed in many different ways. Rather
than pursuing a career as a mediator, you would be well advised to learn many different
ways of pursuing conflict management, then deciding how you would like to use your
integrated skills.
Mediation
Mediation can be defined as “a process in which disputants attempt to resolve their differ-
ences with the assistance of a third party whom they find acceptable” (Kressel 2014, 817).
The mediator has no power to render a decision or impose a solution. Instead, the media-
tor helps the parties themselves to work out their differences and to construct a mutually
acceptable solution (Greenwood 2008). Mediation works best in conflicts occupying the
middle level of difficulty—those with the following:
∙ Moderate rather than extreme levels of conflict
∙ Parties who are motivated to resolve their differences through mediation
∙ Available resources: material, social support, and emotional maturity

∙ Parties of more or less equal power
∙ Absence of value conflicts resulting from religious differences or ethical principles
(Kressel 2014, 820)
The mediator controls the process—not letting the participants interrupt, call names,
speak in derisive ways, stonewall, escalate, avoid, or engage in other destructive moves.
But the mediator does not control the outcome—the solutions to the dispute come from
the parties themselves. Sometimes mediators engage in “shuttle diplomacy,” keeping the
parties separate and relaying messages back and forth. Separation of the parties is common
in intense disputes such as court-ordered divorce mediation, or other situations in which
the parties are unable to be in the same room with each other. However, most mediation is
performed with the parties in the same room, with the mediator modeling and controlling
the communication process for mutual benefit.
Originally, mediators were not expected to coach the parties. In contemporary prac-
tice, however, the roles of coach and mediator often overlap. A mediator, or person using
mediation skills, may be interested both in teaching parties how to communicate and in
helping resolving a specific dispute.
The structure of communication in mediation is shown in Figure 9.1. In true media-
tion, the mediator works to help the parties communicate, and is not a final judge or arbiter. As
a result, as Figure 9.1 demonstrates, the mediator is present to serve the parties. The process
of mediation assumes that conflict is inevitable and resolvable. It further assumes that people
in a conflict have enough common interest to reach an agreement and that the parties are
responsible for settling their own conflict. It assumes that the parties’ solutions will be more
responsive to their needs than a settlement imposed by a third party (Moore 2003).
Advantages of Mediation. Mediation brings distinct advantages to the management of
conflict. First, because it relies on the parties’ active negotiation and involvement, it pro-
motes a mutual stake in resolution; therefore, solutions are more likely to be carried out by
the parties. The agreement is theirs, not imposed, and as a result there is no “loser” who
Figure 9.1 Mediation (the solid lines indicate flow of communication)
Party A Party B
Mediator
feels compelled to strike back. The parties created the conflict, and they work for its solu-
tion. Their active involvement is a source of mutual empowerment; they take ownership of
the conflict and, with the mediator’s assistance, impose some limits on the process. In most
mediation, the parties “have had some sort of prior relationship that will continue long
after the dispute has been resolved” (Alper and Nichols 1981, 13; Kelly 2004).
Second, since mediated agreements represent the work of the parties, the solutions are
more likely to be integrative and creative (Billikopf 2009). The parties know better than any
outsider what will work for them, and with the assistance of the mediator, they can craft unique
solutions that work for them. An example of this is two businessmen in a mediation process.
When they first entered mediation, Nick demanded that Paul pay him $60,000 for his part of
their business that Paul developed in Hawaii without Nick’s input. Had they gone to court or
arbitration, they would have “settled” for some amount between $0 and $60,000 (probably
$25,000 to $35,000). They would have ruptured their business relationship and friendship.
During mediation it was discovered that Nick really wanted (1) to be included and involved and
(2) to be valued by his partner for his selling skills. They agreed to have Paul send Nick and
Nick’s wife twice a year to Hawaii, where Nick would train Paul’s salespeople free of charge.
This integrative and creative solution never would have happened in adjudication or arbitration.
Third, as this example also illustrates, mediation helps the parties meet their underly-
ing interests rather than fight over positions. Nick’s real needs were for involvement and
being valued, not money. Fighting over the position of $60,000 would not have kept the
business partnership together, and would have obscured the underlying interests. Often,
someone wants an apology rather than money.
Fourth, mediation is usually cheaper than adjudication or arbitration. For instance, in
one study of 449 cases mediation settled 78% of them with an average cost of $2,750, com-
pared to $11,800 for arbitration (Brett, Barsness, and Goldberg 1996). The settlement rates
for different types of mediation vary but are generally high (Kelly 2004).
Fifth, mediated parties are more satisfied with the process than are participants in
adjudication or arbitration. All you have to do is talk to someone who has gone to court
and ask, “How was that process for you?” You will hear frustration, blame, and anger. In
contrast is a couple whose divorce was successfully mediated some years ago. They remain
satisfied as their children have grown and their circumstances changed. They had two
young girls and were committed to some form of co-parenting. Since the father planned a
move to the West Coast, they had to work out living arrangements, child support, and travel
and holiday agreements. Ten years later, the couple came back to the original mediators
for help with a problem that developed when the girls went to college. As they called for
an appointment, the wife said, “We didn’t dare fight. We’ve told everyone how great this
process is, so everybody is looking to us to see how we will do. We have to work it out.”
Managers, counselors, and individual citizens can do much to promote mediation,
when it is not widely available. Managers can provide mediation training for themselves
and their employees, can establish formal mediation processes in an organization, and
can develop an ongoing relationship with conflict resolution specialists who can provide
coaching, informal conciliation, mediation, and training (Kressel 2014).
Gender and Mediation Styles. Three main findings result from ongoing research on con-
flict styles in mediation. Women tend to favor communal and process-oriented conflict
resolution styles. This is true for conflict parties in general, and also for women mediators.
Men lean toward focused and task-oriented approaches. Mediators are evaluated by clients
differently based on gender. Female mediators must demonstrate an impartial, unbiased
approach, while male mediators gain trust by showing empathy (see Olekalns 2014 for an
analysis of gender and mediation). As we have pointed out through this book, a healthy mix
of male-gender and female-gender role styles adds up to the most trustworthy and effective
style. The problem-solving style of mediating has, until recently, remained the default, pre-
ferred approach to mediation. Relational styles focus less on reaching specific agreements
and more on facilitating communication and dealing with emotions and underlying per-
ceptions so that the parties can reach agreements (Kressel 2014, 834). Mediators are well
advised to be stylistically flexible, depending on the needs of the situation and the context.
How might this be accomplished? A female mediator should remain unbiased, and
avoid becoming overly involved in the emotional communication of any one party. At the
same time, she should ask questions that will help the parties to understand their feel-
ings, and the importance of their ongoing connection. One example of an almost-failed
mediation occurred when a female mediator began to admonish a man who was berating
and threatening his female partner. She told him to stop communicating in this demeaning
and threatening way (overly directive). He stood up to walk out, and the female mediator
blocked his entry from the room. The situation almost escalated into violence (this unhappy
incident was reported to one of the authors who was supervising mediators as part of their
training). The mediator would have likely been more successful saying something like this:
Mediator: “Dan, it looks to me as though Karen is not listening to you; she seems to be
tuning you out. I want to be sure you are heard. Would you tell me what your
strong feelings are about, and I’ll coach you on how to say what you need to
say to Karen so she can hear you.”
Dan: “I am not going to let my children have any contact with that sleaze-bag boy-
friend she’s hooked up with!”
Mediator: You are concerned about Karen’s friend’s contact with the children?
(The mediator reframes a dominating style into a concern, and reframes my
children into the children.)
One simple reframe will not resolve this relational dispute, but the mediator shows
impartiality by respecting Dan and helping him to be heard. Notice that the mediator
coaches while mediating.
A male mediator heard a strong outburst from a female party in the middle of a session.
Sharon: “I cannot trust a single thing this lying SOB says.”
Male mediator: “Let’s stay with the agenda we set up. We are discussing child support, based
on your incomes. We’ll get to issues of validation later.”
Sharon: “He lies.”
Male mediator: “The tax returns are official documents. We can work with those.”
Obviously, the male mediator would have increased his demonstration of empathy by
saying something like this:
Mediator: “Sharon, you are concerned that Ken is misrepresenting his income? Could
you help me understand your concerns by telling me specifically what you
can’t trust?”
The couple is divorcing partly because of lack of trust. When the mediator listens to
Sharon, begins to search for the source of her mistrust, both parties can see that their con-
cerns will be taken seriously. Male mediators must treat emotion as part of the context and
valid process of mediation.
Limitations to Mediation Limitations to mediation do exist. First, not all conflict parties
can agree to work through their conflict with the “enemy.” They may either not want to
talk openly about their difficulties with the other or not want to be in the presence of the
other person. Many conflicts escalate to the point where conjoint constructive work is not
possible. The conflict may be so protracted that the only solution is a win/lose structure in
which an outside party decides. In addition, if someone thinks he or she can win by going
to court, that person is less likely to want mediation. Furthermore, attorneys who do not
favor mediation will not refer clients to mediation. Attorneys who have not been exposed
to nonadversarial methods of conflict resolution are less likely to refer clients to mediation.
Mediation may not be appropriate for certain types of relationships (Cloke 2001).
Mediation involves considerable commitment to working on the conflict. However, many
parties are not prepared to reinvest in a relationship that has been problematic for them;
they would rather try other routes to settlement or just continue the conflict. For example,
Kressel, Jaffee, Tuchman, Watson, and Deutsch (1980) discovered that enmeshed couples
were so intertwined in their dynamics that mediation was not successful for them. Simi-
larly, couples with weak relationship bonds are often not good candidates for mediation.
Both too much and too little involvement with the other work against mediation.
Another limitation of mediation is that when one person, usually the woman, has been
abused physically or emotionally, she may not be able to speak up with enough authority in
mediation to generate options, argue for her perspective, and avoid being manipulated. Even
when no overt abuse has occurred, many women are not able to negotiate with the person they
once loved (and may still love) even if the relationship is breaking up. Some women try to work
on the relationship as it is breaking up, sometimes out of concern for the children, but some-
times because of cultural conditioning. Such power imbalances can also happen in the work-
place, where the woman is not able to stand up to supervisors and push for what she wants.
The final limitation of mediation is that involvement in mediation is sometimes not
worth the effort. Many small disputes may be more efficiently handled by third-party adju-
dication, such as by small-claims court or a justice of the peace, than by the disputants try-
ing to work with each other. The conflict may not be serious enough to warrant “working
through” by the conflict parties.
Mediation Settings Mediation may be applied to a wide variety of settings and disputes.
It has been used successfully in such diverse arenas as
∙ Business disputes
Partnership concerns
Contract disagreements Management team disputes
Entire work groups split into coalitions
Employee grievances
Sexual harassment
Employee–employee disputes
∙ Domestic disputes
Separation and divorce
Estate distribution after a death Parental conflicts
Parent–child concerns
Disputes between romantic partners who are splitting up
Grandparental visitation of children
∙ Educational settings
Disputes over grades or treatment in class
Relationships between students and other students
Student–faculty relationships
Faculty–faculty conflicts
Faculty–administration disputes
∙ Community/neighborhood disputes
Barking dogs
Property line disputes Small claims
Landlord–tenant disputes
∙ The criminal justice system
Juvenile court situations
VOR (victim–offender restitution)
Treatment in detention facilities
∙ Labor–management conflicts
Contract disputes
Work rules
Fringe benefits packages
Community mediation programs continue to expand across much of the United States,
with high rates of settlement success. In Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, and
other states, the success rates for mediating community disputes range from 75% to 95%
(Umbreit 1995, 59). Community centers typically rely on volunteers who are trained by
the local dispute resolution center. Community mediation programs offer excellent train-
ing, supervision, and guidance, as well as opportunities to help others resolve disputes.
Complaints range from noisy neighbors to “He took my parking space”—almost any issue
one can imagine that arises in a neighborhood. You can contact your local mediation center
where you might volunteer and receive training. You should see this avenue as primary a
place for you to volunteer, rather than to be paid for your expertise.
Schools, ranging from elementary schools to universities, are using considerable
amounts of mediation. Many grade schools, middle schools, high schools, and universi-
ties have instituted programs of mediation and standards for programs have been specified
(Association for Conflict Resolution 2007a). In peer mediation programs, the party’s peers
will help solve disputes ranging from playground difficulties to teacher–student problems.
As an example of peer mediation, here are some tasks for fourth- and fifth-grade mediators
when they see a conflict beginning:
1. When you see a conflict brewing during recess or lunch, introduce yourself and ask
both parties if they want to solve their problem.
2. If they do, go to the area designated for solving problems. Explain and get agreement
to the four basic rules: (a) agree to solve the problem, (b) don’t call each other names,
(c) do not interrupt, and (d) tell the truth.
3. Decide who will talk first. Ask that person what happened and how he or she feels,
using active listening skills to repeat what is said. Do the same with the other
person.
4. Ask the first party and then the second party for alternative solutions.
5. Work with the students toward a solution that they both think is good.
6. After the agreement is reached, congratulate the parties and fill out the Conflict
Manager Report Form. (Umbreit 1995, 78)
School mediation programs have had considerable success (Kowalski 1998). Of 137
disputes between students in Honolulu, 92% resulted in complete agreement, and after the
institution of peer mediation in New York schools, suspensions decreased by more than
half. Clearly, school mediation is a viable form of third-party intervention for a variety
of disputes (Burrell and Cahn 1994; Umbreit 1995). In the university and college set-
ting, campus mediation centers deal with disputes over grades and behavior in classrooms,
dorms, and married-student housing. Some of the centers provide family mediation ser-
vices to students as well.
Family mediation takes many forms, the most common application being separa-
tion and divorce. With almost half of all marriages ending in divorce and the pain of
going through the court system all too evident, mediation of separation and divorce
is becoming increasingly common. Mediation cannot replace the legal process; it is
an adjunct to it. By law, the judge retains all the authority to decide the details of a
divorce, but a cooperative couple that comes to a judge with a fair agreement will find
the process much easier than trying to “prove the other one wrong.” The couple, with
the mediator’s help, fashions (within the constraints of the law) an agreement that will
work best for their unique situation. The acrimony, lingering conflict, and repeated
trips to court by couples choosing the legal adversarial approach have catalyzed the
mediation movement.
In the family context, family business and estate mediation are becoming more popu-
lar. When a family owns a small business, for example, and the time comes for Mom or
Dad to retire, mediation involves all family members in the decision making so options
can be charted that work best for all. Whether it is the family pharmacy, ranch, or Sub-
way® franchise, (1) topic, (2) relationship, (3) identity, and (4) process issues need to
be carefully addressed. Mediation provides a framework for discussing important family
issues, in addition to the usual issues of taxes, estate planning, and control of decisions.
With mediation, all the TRIP issues can be brought to the surface and negotiated, serving
the entire family. The following article demonstrates the advantages of using mediation
in estate planning.
Application 9.3 The Family Estate
A mother, in her late 70s, is worried about her fairly sizable estate. It includes real estate, stock,
and a long-time family cabin in the mountains. She wants to do the right thing for her three grown
children and their grown families so the adult siblings will not bicker after she’s gone. She vividly
remembers a nephew who, after her father’s death, broke into the family house and took one of
his guns. After 25 years, the family still talks about it!
The mother and two of the three siblings know nothing about mediation. The other sibling
urges her to engage a tax attorney first and then ask a mediator to meet with the whole family of
four. If she does this:
What content issues might possibly arise?
What relationship issues have not been addressed?
Whose identity concerns might show up?
What procedural issues could cause difficulties?
If she follows the advice of only one of the siblings, what concerns might the others have?
How might she or they proceed with selecting a mediator?
Mediation can be used in conjunction with counseling to resolve adolescent–parent

conflicts—those natural calamities that arise in most families. Whereas for some, adoles-
cence is a minor inconvenience, for others it is “a painful exhausting journey that cuts into
the bond between parent and child” (Umbreit 1995, 116). A trained mediator can help both
the adolescent and the parent(s) develop workable agreements to get them through this all
too often contentious stage of family life. Whatever the need for family mediation, media-
tors who are members of the Association for Conflict Resolution follow specific standards
for practice.
Victim–Offender Restitution (VOR) is a specialized form of mediation designed for
cases in which someone is guilty of a crime (Umbreit, Coates, and Vos 2004). Rather than
resolving the issue by involving the defendant and the court system, VOR brings the victim
into the process. Both the victim and the perpetrator tell their story and review options for
compensation of the victim. Such an approach allows the victim participation, brings the
reality of the crime home to the offender, and sets the conditions under which the offender
can compensate the victim for what was done. It recognizes the victim’s rights, allows the
offender to take responsibility for what he or she has done, and provides avenues for res-
toration. A poignant example of a creative use of mediation for a minor crime is presented
in the box.
“I Stole Your TV”
An example illustrates the constructive use of mediation to achieve both symbolic and actual resti-
tution. An elderly woman returned to her home one afternoon to find her television set gone. The
(continued)
“I Stole Your TV”
youth who had stolen it was apprehended and admitted that he had sold the set to a friend. Rather
than face a fine or continuance under probation, the defendant, in the presence of the mediation
board and of the victim, sat down to work out a nonpunitive resolution to submit to the judge for
his approval. The woman broke down in the course of telling the boy, “I watch television all day.
This is all I do. I watch 16 hours a day. You have taken the heart of my life away.” Confronted with
personal implications of his act, the youth agreed to accept a job in order to buy the widow a new
set. In addition, he agreed that he would accompany her to the bank to cash her weekly check
and escort her to the market to do her shopping. A postscript to the case reports that after inviting
the boy to have coffee with her, the woman learned from him that his mother had died and that he
lived in an uncongenial relationship with his father and brother. Thereafter, these Saturday morning
coffee hours became a weekly feature. The closing entry reports that the boy had volunteered to
paint the woman’s kitchen.
Source: Alper and Nichols 1981, 146–147.
Mediation is used in the business setting as well. When a dispute arises between two
co-workers, between a supervisor and an employee, or within a self-directed work team,
mediation allows the parties to address the issue in a confidential way.
Some examples of the use of mediation in business settings are as follows: A wife and
husband were co-owners of a business, and he took out loans against the business without
consulting her. With the ongoing help of the mediator, they restored their working relation-
ship, got their employees out of the middle of their struggles, and began cooperating fully
with each other. In another case, a male supervisor in a large institution was investigated
by the personnel office for sexual harassment. After he was found not guilty of harass-
ment, something had to be done to reestablish the working relationship between him and
his female administrative aide. The mediator worked with them to (1) set clear boundar-
ies on appropriate behavior on both their parts, (2) stop tattling to higher authorities, and
(3) establish clear protocols for communication behavior in the office. These are samples
of the kinds of disputes that can be successfully handled via mediation.
Mediation: Agreement or Transformation? Mediators’ views of the mediation process
differ on two primary points: (1) What issues are tackled in sessions and (2) what the goals
are for the mediation. Some mediators (usually those with technical and/or legal training)
will only mediate on the topic or content issues. For example, many legal jurisdictions have
a “settlement week” when they convene groups of attorneys to mediate cases that are back-
logged on the court calendars. Usually, the process used is shuttle diplomacy, keeping the
parties separate and going back and forth with proposals. This type of mediation is usu-
ally quite different from, for example, family mediation that deals with topic, relationship,
identity, and process issues. In family mediation, the parties are together a good portion of
the time. Both types of mediation have their place, but as a user of the services you should
be aware that the mediators’ views of mediation result in vastly different processes.
A local attorney who was going to mediate between two different factions (an insur-
ance company with an attorney and a tribal elder with a representative) called for advice.
In the phone call, it became apparent that his only considerations were topic issues. The
parties did settle the topic issues exclusively, primarily because of the natural empathy of
the attorney, whom everyone saw as a warm and friendly person.
Disputants in an ongoing relationship do better when mediators expand the issues being
considered. The results of research on family mediation are quite clear—when mediators
bypass the relational issues and focus only on “facts,” they have trouble obtaining agreement
from the parties (Donohue 1991; Donohue, Allen, and Burrell 1988; Donohue, Drake, and
Roberto 1994). Sustainable agreements take relationship and identity issues into account.
Mediators also differ on whether they search for agreement or transformation (Associa-
tion for Conflict Resolution 2007b). Some mediators just want an agreement—to settle the
present conflict. Others want to see clients undergo transformation—a change in how they see
themselves and the other. The second approach combines coaching, counseling, and mediation.
Transformation occurs when clients experience empowerment and give recogni-
tion to each other. Clients are empowered when they more clearly realize their goals
(empowerment of goals), become aware of a wider range of options (empowerment of
options), increase their skills (empowerment of skills), gain new awareness of resources
(empowerment of resources), and make conscious decisions about what they want to do
(empowerment of decision making). “When these kinds of things occur within relation-
ships, the party experiences a greater sense of self-worth, security, self-determination,
and autonomy” (Bush and Folger 2004, 87).
The “just get agreement” problem-solving approach to mediation is more aligned with
an individualistic worldview, in which we see ourselves as separate entities. On the other
hand, the transformative view has as its underpinnings a relational view—that we are all
interconnected and part of an organic whole.
Mediation Process and Skills For mediation that includes more than the just the topic
dispute, the mediator needs to have an expansive set of skills to control the process of
communication, affirm both parties, and move the parties toward creative content and rela-
tional solutions, all the while staying within legal and cultural parameters. The mediator
needs to have both reflective skills and directive skills. The parties need to tell their stories,
and later move toward solving the joint problems.
The stages of mediation are as follows:
∙ Entry
∙ Diagnosis
∙ Negotiation
∙ Agreements
∙ Follow-up
When one follows these steps in mediation, key tasks are accomplished at each step.
The mediator wants to do the following things at each stage:
Entry
1. Explain the process.
2. Clarify your role and establish your credibility.
3. Explore consequences of not proceeding.
Diagnosis
1. Gather data with interviews and observations.
2. Look at the conflict elements:
∙ Topic
∙ Relational
∙ Identity/face-saving
∙ Procedure
3. Avoid rushing to solutions.
Negotiation
1. Create a safe setting.
2. Establish common ground.
3. Set an agenda.
4. Balance power/enforce equal talk time.
Agreements
1. Generate different ways to meet interests.
2. Specify who, what, when, where, and how.
3. Agree on the form of the agreement—oral, written, legal.
Follow-up
1. Decide on exact follow-up procedure.
2. Notify other stakeholders of actions.
3. Reach agreement for how to deal with future disputes.
4. Embed the agreement within the system. (Yarbrough and Wilmot 1995)
The key to effective mediation is the level of competence of the mediator and the
motivation of the parties (McGuigan and Popp 2007). If you are to be a mediator or
other type of third-party intervener, you have an ethical obligation to (1) receive exten-
sive training in the necessary skills, (2) have the opportunity to try those skills with
co-mediators or mentors, (3) be supervised by experienced mediators, and (4) continue
your skill training and exposure to the literature on mediation. One cannot learn media-
tion skills solely from a book—they have to be practiced and critiqued. You should
continually question all of your assumptions about what mediation is and what it can
accomplish.
Culture In different cultures, the intervention forms will differ from the above. The Hawaiian
system of Ho’oponopono is so creative that it is discussed in depth in the final chapter on for-
giveness and reconciliation. In addition, Ury (1990) studied the Kalahari bushmen, who follow
a sequence for solving conflicts that taps the third force—the power of the community. The
disputants actually meet in front of others and work the conflict through with the participation
of others.
In every serious dispute between two individuals or groups a third party is at work.
The third party is usually not a single individual but a collective of third parties: a third
force of concerned relatives, friends, and elders. These third parties are typically “insider
third parties” with strong ties to either one or both sides. There can be no private disputes
of any seriousness because a dispute affects everyone.
The role of spirit or religion in resolving disputes is also recognized in many societies.
In Malay society, for example, the spiritual elements play a prominent role, and the media-
tor spends informal time with the disputants in all kinds of contexts—attending family
gatherings and weddings, for example. Native American cultures that keep their spiritual
traditions alive continue to use spiritual force to resolve conflicts. Umbreit (1995) provides
a comprehensive overview of some of these approaches and says this about some Native
American traditions of dispute resolution:
A model of mediation that is culturally sensitive to Native Americans and aboriginal people in
Canada would be quite different from the dominant Western models. Such a model is likely to
include consensus decision making; preference for co-mediation; separate pre-mediation ses-
sions with each person; involvement of elders in the mediation; presence of chosen family mem-
bers; circular seating; silence as comfortable; interruptions as inappropriate; nonlinear agenda;
and the use of cultural metaphors and symbols. From this culture perspective, mediation occurs
within a large cultural context. (37)
Just as we cannot import other cultural forms into mainstream Western culture without
modification, neither can we export Western modes directly into other cultural situations.
Similarly, within subcultures of Western society, one needs to adapt dispute resolution
mechanisms to address their special situations. Many community mediation centers solicit
volunteers who are from diverse groups as a way to bridge the gap between traditional
mediation techniques and the special needs of subcultures.
Application 9.4 You as Mediator
Go back to the section on “mediation settings” and pick a context that interests you as a potential
mediator. Based on your selection:
• What about that setting seems to be a natural “fit” for you?
• List the specific skills you have that could be used in mediation.
• Facilitation skills (the soft skills, listening, reflecting, and others)
• Directive skills (taking control of the process, being firm and others)
• What skills of yours could be improved?
• Facilitation skills
• Directive skills
• If you want to become a mediator
• What training would you seek?
• What readings would you do?
(continued)
Application 9.4 You as Mediator
• How would you begin?

• Who might you select as a trained supervisor?
• What associations would you join as a way to stay current?
• Who might refer cases to you?
• Who might you go in partnership with?
• How would mediation fit with your other professional responsibilities?
The above questions might be answered best by interviewing a mediator to gain insight into
what he or she suggests. This assignment might be part of a group report or activities for your
class. If there are enough mediators available in your community to interview, you can compare
and compile answers for a class report or paper.
When an Outsider Decides

The structure of communication differs profoundly between a mediation model and
adjudication/arbitration. The mediator is there to facilitate communication between the
parties. The mediator is the convener, the facilitator, but not the one who makes the
decision. Figure 9.2 shows the communication linkages when arbitration or adjudica-
tion is used.
Figure 9.2 Lines of communication with professional advocates. (Solid lines indicate heavy
communication; broken lines signify that the judge or jury is used as a reference point for the attor-
neys, often without direct communication; absence of lines signifies no direct communication.)
Judge/jury or arbitrator
A’s B’s
lawyer or lawyer or
representative representative
Conflicting Conflicting
party A party B
Arbitration: An Expert Decides

Arbitration and adjudication share a similar structure. In both, a third party is empowered
to decide the outcome of a conflict. Parties who cannot resolve their conflict go before an
arbitrator or judge/jury to solve their conflict. The arbitration might be focused on a labor
contract, or between two business partners. Such contract disputes are a common form of
“rights” arbitration; many managers and line workers routinely sign contracts with a clause
calling for arbitration in the case of disagreement. If you buy a car, have to make numer-
ous repairs, and cannot get compensation from the dealer, you can ask for arbitration. The
arbitrator listens to both sides of the dispute, questions you and the car dealer (or your rep-
resentatives), and renders a judgment. When the parties contractually agree to arbitration,
the arbitrated judgment is enforceable in court. This process is called binding arbitration;
the judgment is final.
Voluntary, or nonbinding, arbitration is sometimes used when the parties have not
contractually agreed to binding arbitration. In nonbinding arbitration, if parties do not
accept the judgment they then proceed to more arbitration or court.
Arbitration has some distinct features that make it useful as a form of third-party inter-
vention. First, unlike adjudication, both parties enter into arbitration voluntarily, unless
they have signed an arbitration agreement as part of the terms of employment. Second,
it keeps one party from using passive-aggressive or impasse tactics on the other—sooner
or later the issue will be resolved (Coogler 1978). Third, in many cases the arbitrator has
special training in the content area of the dispute, such as in contract arbitration. When the
arbitrator has special expertise in the content of the arbitration, he or she can often offer
creative content solutions. Fourth, arbitration is readily available for use in situations in
which the participants experience a communication breakdown and are no longer able
to solve their own problems. Finally, arbitration is a process that can be used for a wide
variety of content areas, ranging from contract disputes, medical malpractice, or landlord–
tenant conflicts to domestic relations (Alper and Nichols 1981; Tyler 1987).
Most law schools now provide training in alternative dispute resolution. Thus, the
well-educated attorney joins the conflict management community in providing flexible,
appropriate levels of conflict management skills. Many attorneys provide informal coach-
ing with their clients before settlement conferences or mediation.
Arbitration does have some limitations. It tends to resolve conflicts solely on a content
basis. Arbitration typically does not address the relational or face-saving aspects of the
dispute, which is unfortunate because if parties can reach some accord in their relation-
ship, the content issues can often be worked out. Arbitration reinforces the assumption that
the parties cannot learn to manage their own difficulties—that only a third party can find
a solution. Arbitration reinforces escalation as a legitimate tactic because intransigence
will automatically bring in an outsider. Despite these disadvantages, arbitration is still a
widely used alternative in conflict management because it binds parties procedurally to
seek resolution. The prerequisite that parties agree to arbitrate (either contractually before
the dispute begins or voluntarily once they are in conflict) enhances the chances for pro-
ductive conflict management.
Adjudication: Judge or Jury Decides
Adjudication is a process in which parties present their case before a judge or jury. Adju-
dication assumes that parties are unable to solve their own conflicts, and a decision must
be imported from outside (Wissler 2004). It is similar to arbitration in that a third party
decides, but adjudication can be put into motion without mutual consent. In adjudication,
you can sue the other party, forcing a decision whether the other wants to participate or not.
Additionally, the officials of the criminal justice system can initiate charges, for instance, in
cases of bodily assault, robbery, and related offenses. Adjudication assumes that a full argu-
ment of each side of a conflict will allow a judge or jury to make a just decision.
Once a suit has been filed with the court (or a petition filed for arbitration), lawyers
or other advocates negotiate with each other, often instructing the conflict parties (the liti-
gants) to not talk to each other. In this structure, the litigants set into motion a struggle that
the lawyers act out. The original conflict metamorphoses into a conflict between the two
lawyers (Irving and Bohm 1978). The attorneys become the prime players, who negotiate
with each other, trying to estimate what the judge (or jury) will do with the case. Each law-
yer’s estimate of the judge’s, jury’s, or arbitrator’s probable response becomes the basis of
his or her negotiation strategy. The lawyers then try to persuade each other that their views
are correct.
Court processes are fairly well known. One party files charges in court and the other
must appear to respond. Between the time of the filing and the court date, the lawyers
usually negotiate with each other regarding the case. For example, a landlord charges a
tenant with violation of a lease agreement because the tenant signed a 1-year lease and
moved after 4 months. The landlord files suit to recover the rent for the 8 months the
renter was not living there. The two lawyers typically begin negotiations, calling and
writing back and forth. If they are not able to reach settlement, the case goes to court; a
judge or jury, after hearing testimony and evidence from both sides, may decide that the
tenant must pay the 8 months’ rent, plus attorney fees. If no appeal is filed, the resolution
process will end with the enforcement of the action. In a case like this, a justice of the
peace may decide the case.
Litigating a dispute is both an alternative to negotiating and, at the same time, a way to
force negotiation. Since most lawsuits are settled before trial (more than 90%, according to
most studies), it is useful to view litigation not only as a way to “go to court” but also as a
highly structured negotiation game, a “refined and constrained version of competitive bar-
gaining” (Goodpaster 1992, 221). Filing a lawsuit forces a nonresponding party to attend to
the complaint—avoidance is not possible once a suit is filed.
Positive Features of Adjudication “Equal protection of the law” allows everyone access

to a resolution process and does not require the agreement of the other party. Therefore,
adjudication serves as a power-balancing mechanism. For example, individuals can sue
large corporations. In the case of abused or neglected children, a state agency can bring
the parents before a court to determine their suitability for continued parenting. The chil-
dren’s representative, a guardian ad litem, acts as their agent. When power is extremely
unbalanced, as in cases involving children, intervention should empower the weaker party.
A second positive feature of adjudication is that it provides rules for fairness, such as the
admission of evidence. In some interpersonal conflicts, one party monopolizes the pro-
cess, with few restraints. Process restraints are, however, built into the legal system. Each
party has the equal right to speak. The process rules allow both parties to fully expli-
cate their positions. Third, the use of professionals to speak for the conflict parties is an
advantage for parties who need assistance in preparation or presentation of their case. The
trained legal expert can develop the best case for the client, ensure fair procedures, and set
forth the case with vigor.
Finally, adjudication serves as a backup for other conflict management procedures.
When arbitration, mediation, conciliation/coaching, and negotiation fail to produce agree-
ment, the disputants can go to court. The appeal process allows people to present their
case in a higher court if they dislike an earlier judgment. The moral as well as physical
power present in our judicial and criminal justice systems provides a last-resort option
when necessary.
Limitations of Adjudication The judicial system also has some limitations in dealing
with conflict. First, it has been overused and, as a consequence, is overburdened and
misused. Former chief justice Warren Burger, referring to the legal profession, said, “The
obligation of our profession is to serve as healers of human conflicts” (Ray 1982), but
“suing has become an American parlor game” (Marks 1981). As a result, there is an
“unprecedented demand upon the judicial system, leading to considerable frustration and
delay . . .” (Sander 1977, 2). Guarantees of speedy justice are difficult to receive; delays
of as much as 2 years between filing and first court appearances are common. Because
the judicial system has been used and talked about so much, many individuals automati-
cally think of it as the way to “get even” for some wrong. They often do not realize they
have chosen a mode of conflict resolution until “they find themselves caught up in it
with apparently no way out” (Coogler 1978, 6). One legal scholar concludes, “It seems
clear that it is simply too cumbersome and expensive for most (minor) disputes” (Sander
1977, 24). A continuing round of court battles in order to win can deplete almost anyone’s
finances.
A second disadvantage of using the legal system for conflict resolution is that conflict
parties no longer make their own decisions. For example, in a dispute involving a com-
munity (such as one over an environmental issue), “Litigation takes the decision out of
the hands of the communities who must live with its consequences” (Wehr 1979, 123).
Similarly, if two people are involved in a protracted domestic dispute such as a contested
divorce, the parties stop dealing directly with each other and the attorneys take over the
negotiation process. Sometimes the conflict parties, after seeing the communication struc-
ture inherent in adjudication, decide to go a different route. For example, Sharon and her
ex-husband, Ted, had been divorced for 3 years and were having difficulties agreeing on
child visitation arrangements. They lived in different towns, and each had consulted an
attorney about visitation options. One day in April, Sharon flew to Ted’s city and called
him, only to discover that his attorney had told him, “Don’t talk to her, and hold out for
all you can get.” Sharon told Ted that she had received the same advice from her attorney.
They realized that if they both followed their lawyers’ advice, they would be in for a long
court battle. The two of them wisely decided to empower themselves. They met the next
day and worked out an agreement—though the process was difficult for them. They were
the original parties to the dispute and were the ones who would have to live with the long-
term results of a decision. Therefore, turning over the decision to their representatives
wasn’t desirable.
A final disadvantage of adjudication is that the adversarial system operates on a win/
lose set of conflict assumptions that encourages escalation tactics (Hartje 1984; Menkel-
Meadow 1986). Often the lawyer is seen as each client’s only champion in a hostile world.
This belief promotes escalation when, in fact, it might not be necessary. In order to file an
action, one has to blow up the magnitude of the conflict to a “You owe us” or “We’ll get
you” frame of mind; one tries to win at the other’s expense. Filing an action is a signal of
serious conflict, and unfortunately, filing sets an escalating process in motion. Because
attorneys are charged with solely representing the interests of their client, “The client’s
interest is always perceived as being in opposition to the interests of the other party. The
lawyer cannot and does not regard the parties as having a common problem which he or
she will help resolve” (Coogler 1978, 7). The gathering of evidence for one side of the
conflict disregards the relational and face-saving interests of both parties. While the par-
ties cooperate by following procedural rules, this level of commonality does not open up
creative outcomes. The escalating, win/lose atmosphere is often difficult to disengage
from once it has been set into motion. Suits and countersuits reflect continual escala-
tion, with each “loser” trying again on some other basis until resources or options are
exhausted.
Summary
This chapter gives an overview of resolution formats and mediation all employ the skills taught in con-
that may be helpful in resolving conflict, ranging flict management. The mediator facilitates commu-
from informal to formal modes. The purpose of inter- nication and helps the parties reach an agreement
vening in conflict is to transform the conflict ele- that will work for both of them. Various settings for
ments, thereby allowing for effective management. mediation exist, ranging from family disputes to busi-
You can intervene informally, especially when you ness concerns all the way to international conflicts.
are aware of the pitfalls. Formal intervention modes For instance, school mediation programs are use-
differ according to how much the original conflict ful throughout all levels of schools. Although some
parties determine the outcome. In both adjudication mediators want only agreement, others strive for
and arbitration, an outsider (judge, jury, or arbitrator) transformation of the conflict parties. There are pro-
decides the outcome of the dispute. Coaching, coun- found differences in third-party intervention across
seling, and mediation, on the other hand, involve the cultures. In collectivist cultures, people often use
participants in the management of their own strug- extended networks of people to help parties reach and
gle. Coaching has grown into a recognized field in keep agreements, whereas Western cultures generally
alternative dispute resolution. Coaching, counseling, do not.
Key Terms
informal intervention 290 counseling 298 third force 309
formal intervention 290 mediation 299 arbitration 312
unfair bonding 292 Victim-Offender Restitution binding arbitration 312
siding 292 (VOR) 306 adjudication 312
conflict coaching 295 shuttle diplomacy 307
Review Questions
1. Explain the statement, “The goal of all inter- 8. What are the interpersonal advantages and dis-
vention is to transform the conflict elements.” advantages of arbitration?
Choose an example to illustrate the idea. 9. Explain how negotiation functions in all the
2. What are the effects of siding with one of the forms of third-party intervention.
conflict parties? 10. Explain how the mediator controls the process
3. What are cautions to remember when you are but not the outcome of a conflict.
considering being a third-party helper? 11. What are the basic tasks of mediation accord-
4. How do coaches help with conflicts? ing to the “stages of mediation”?
5. What is the role of counseling as informal 12. What are the advantages and limitations of
intervention? mediation?
6. Describe different approaches to mediation 13. What are some differences between Western
discussed in the chapter. and traditional cultural expectations and proce-
7. What are the interpersonal advantages and dis- dures of mediation?
advantages of adjudication?
Chapter 10
The Practice of Forgiveness
and Reconciliation
by Gary W. Hawk, M. Div., University of Montana-Ret.
He has ruined my past. I’m beginning to toy with the idea of forgiveness so that I don’t allow him to
destroy my future as well.
—Lynn Shriner (Zehr 2001)
Forgiveness and Reconciliation in the Context

of Interpersonal Conflict
In the preceding chapters of this book, we have sought to define conflict and help you
understand different attitudes toward and metaphors for conflict. We have explored in
depth the patterns of communication that contribute to destructive conflict as well as those
that can reverse the spiral and direct it toward mutual understanding and collaboration.
We have offered tools for analyzing conflict. We have shown how emotion enters into the
process, how people negotiate their way through conflict, or seek third-party assistance in
processing it. In this chapter we seek to go beyond all our best efforts to understand and
analyze conflict. Here we consider the possibility of forgiveness and reconciliation, define
the terms, and acknowledge and explore some of the growing body of literature on this
topic. We outline common conceptions and misconceptions about forgiveness. We dig into
both an internal process of forgiveness and the way forgiveness can be aided by interaction
with the other party to the conflict. We describe various forms of communication, explicit
and implicit, that enhance the process. In addition, we explore the complex role of apology
in the movement toward forgiveness, adding necessary words of caution. We will also offer
hope, calling attention to both some exceptional individuals and key principles that inform
and enhance the process of repairing relational wounds. Along the way we rely on insights
from communication research, the counselor’s office, and human history. We explore the
places where stories of human conflict and efforts to repair the hurt we cause one another
find creative means of expression.1
Some Definitions
What is forgiveness? Because of its complexity, forgiveness is defined in many ways. Here we
suggest some of the possibilities. In a conversation with Robert J. Lifton, journalist Bill Moy-
ers quoted William Faulkner as saying that Forgiveness is giving up the idea of a better past.
1
Some of these insights, perspectives, and examples derive from the writer’s teaching of forgiveness
and reconciliation at The Davidson Honors College, University of Montana, and a practice in pastoral
counseling.
In a volume that reveals how much attention has been given in recent years to the study of
forgiveness (McCullough, Pargament, and Thoresen 2000), the authors say, “Interpersonal
forgiveness can be seen as the decision to reduce negative thoughts, affect, and behavior,
such as blame and anger, toward an offender or hurtful situation, and to begin to gain
better understanding of the offense and the offender” (255). Emphasizing the emotional
dimension of forgiveness, Kornfield (2001) says, “Forgiveness is the heart’s capacity to
release its grasp on the pains of the past and free itself to go on” (236). Sensing how the
emotional, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions overlap, Deutsch defines forgiveness as
“giving up rage, the desire for vengeance, and a grudge toward those who have inflicted
grievous harm on you, your loved ones, or groups with whom you identify. It also implies
willingness to accept the other into one’s moral community so that he or she is entitled to
care and justice” (Deutsch and Coleman 2000, 58). After studying clinicians who favored
forgiveness as a therapeutic strategy, Martin and Denton (1998) concluded that forgiveness
is “an inner process, central to psychotherapy, where the injured person without request of
the other releases those negative feelings and no longer seeks to hurt, and this process has
psychological and emotional benefits” (285).
Again, what is forgiveness? You will find that you might be drawn to the idea of giv-
ing up a better past, or the challenge of giving up negative thoughts, feelings, and behavior.
You may resonate with the need to give up vengeful feelings and thoughts and release
grudges. You may feel intrigued by the idea of how people are restored to community after
they have been isolated or felt cast out. Whatever particular challenge meets your own
experience, the following elements make up a definition of forgiveness:
∙ You are focused on the present after reflecting deeply on the past.
∙ You desire to be free of negative patterns that reduce the quality of your life.
∙ You are willing to do your own interior work, regardless of what the other person is
able or willing to do.
∙ You develop compassion for yourself and others, giving up the idea of “getting
even,” therefore enabling yourself to live more freely and happily.
∙ You may engage in a negotiated process involving discussion of different truths,
mutual contributions and impacts, and offering apologies as a strategy for relation-
ship repair.
What’s to Forgive?
Sometimes people do things to us that leave us feeling victimized. An assault or theft, for
example, may forever change how we see the world and our place in it. Someone’s failure
to honor an agreement or a once-shared value may split a relationship apart, end intimacy,
even lead to fantasies of revenge. A person’s addictive behavior can cause emotional dis-
tress and financial loss for friends and family members to such an extent that they break off
connection with one another. In some situations the one who caused harm is not a single
individual but a whole institution, a vast amorphous, seemingly faceless system. Later in
this chapter we will attempt to address this special case. Sometimes our best efforts to
prevent destructive conflict fail. In the aftermath we feel betrayed, deceived, embittered,
or isolated.
Chapter 10 The Practice of Forgiveness and Reconciliation 319
On the other hand, when we feel hurt, afraid, or angry, we may do things to other
people that seem to violate all that we value and believe. We may have told ourselves sto-
ries and constructed internal narratives that cast the other person in a negative light. We
may have convinced ourselves that the other person does not deserve our best efforts or our
compassion. When this happens we may feel totally justified in acting badly in response.
People harm one another not just by what they do to each other but also by what they
say and don’t say. Relational harm occurs across a wide spectrum from regrettable and
hurtful messages to psychological and physical violence. While this array is an entire field
of study in itself,2 a brief review of the elements within it helps us to see very quickly some
of the relational transgressions that pose the question of forgiveness.
In a study of “messages that hurt,” Vangelisti (1994) describes a variety of “speech
acts” that may cause harm. These messages include such things as
∙ Accusations: “You’re a liar.”
∙ Evaluations or judgments: “I knew you weren’t up to the task.”
∙ Orders or commands: “Get that done now!”
∙ Advice: “I strongly suggest that you get a job before the Christmas break.”
∙ A statement of preference or comparison: “I wish you were more like your brother.”
∙ A disclosure of information: “We’ve decided your job is not needed with the
company.”
∙ A judgment disguised as a question or opinion: “When are you going to quit feeling
sorry for yourself?”
∙ A threat: “If I ever see you with her again. . .”
∙ A lie: “I told you I’d quit drinking.”
Metts (1994) adds to this list such things as
∙ Blunders: “How’s your wife?” (not knowing that the person is divorced)
∙ Group reference: “Well, what did you expect from a white guy?” or “Nobody thinks
Indians can run the refuge.”
These various hurtful and regrettable messages may offend cherished values, pollute
the relational climate, make it difficult to maintain closeness, and, in some cases, become
grounds for ending the relationship altogether. In the age of Facebook and Twitter we
can send hurtful and potentially destructive messages almost at the speed of light, leav-
ing messages for all to see. Here, the private becomes public with potentially damaging
consequences.
Any of the above situations or communications, often followed by our best efforts to
address the problem, may leave us needing time to lick our wounds. Eventually we may
begin to wonder about the possibility of forgiving others, seeking forgiveness, or for-
giving ourselves. Forgiveness sometimes follows all our best efforts (Stone, Patton, and
Heen 1999).
2
For a more complete treatment of different types of transgressions, see Metts (1994); Roloff and
Cloven (1994); and Wilmot (1995).
Application 10.1 At a Party
At an end-of-the-semester party in a local bar several friends are gathered around a table releasing
the tension associated with final exams and demanding projects. A person across the table, someone
you’ve always considered a friend but who does not know that your roommate is lesbian, says some-
thing blatantly offensive like, “I’m sick of dykes running that committee in the department.” This com-
ment takes you completely by surprise. It violates your standards for appropriate speech. You had no
idea that this person harbored homophobic feelings. Upset by this remark, you consider your options.
What are they?
• Do you try to break down your dismay privately or do you engage the person directly and try
to confront this behavior?
• If you choose to confront the offense, what approach do you take?
• Do you get angry, take a moral position, make efforts to educate the person across the table,
try humor or minimize the offense in some way? What do you choose and why?
• What do you actually say and why?
Relationships are strained not just by hurtful messages but by unresolved or poorly
resolved conflict. People can remain at odds with each other over money, where to con-
tinue their education, the use of alcohol and other drugs, time spent with other family
members, and family tragedy and loss. These difficulties are particularly common and
painful in intimate relationships. Couples may argue unproductively, harbor unspoken
grievances, unconsciously slight each other, or hold each other hostage for years after an
affair. Hostility may linger in the aftermath of disagreement about how to manage the
multiple requirements of work, parenting, and recreation. For a more thorough treatment
of these and other topics over the course of the lifespan of couple relationships see Harvey
(2004) and Waldron and Kelley (2008).
Stewart, Zediker, and Witteborn (2005) describe the damaging effects of deception,
betrayal, and aggression. When someone deceives or betrays us, these relational trans-
gressions can erode and jeopardize our sense of identity or well-being, not to mention
the relationship. In addition, Cissna and Sieburg (in Stewart 2002, 431ff) contend that
“disconfirmation” is a particularly damaging form of interpersonal behavior. A person is
being disconfirmed when she feels invisible to another, unrecognized, ignored, unacknowl-
edged, or without endorsement. When we are being disconfirmed it seems as though we
do not exist in the eyes of someone else. Disconfirmation is a form of psychological abuse
with potentially long-term consequences that may actually be more harmful than direct
criticism or verbal attack.
When children are harmed physically or sexually, the effects are particularly traumatiz-
ing. The far-ranging consequences of this kind of relational transgression have been made
especially clear in the case associated with Penn State University. In this case, boys were
sexually abused by a trusted coach over the course of several years (Wertheim and Epstein
2011). In the relationship between adult men and women, domestic violence remains all
too prevalent. For example, a recent survey for the Centers for Disease Control and Preven-
tion (Stobbe 2011) reports that one in four women report being assaulted by husbands or
boyfriends. As we discussed in Chapter 4 on power, this kind of harm often follows verbal
aggression. While the abuse of men does occur, men are more likely than women to engage
in physical violence when faced with noncompliant behavior, challenges to their behav-
ior, or questions about their authority. As the tragedy of domestic violence becomes less
concealed, we learn that 40% of the women killed each year will be killed by a spouse or
lover. For an excellent summary of these and related findings, see Lulofs and Cahn (2000,
324–325) and research presented in Chapter 4. Whether harm comes to a relationship as
the result of something as seemingly minor as a slight or blunder or as major as exclusion
on the basis of race, sexual harassment, or an outright assault, all of the ways that people
mistreat each other become the backdrop for a discussion of forgiveness. In the classroom
and the therapist’s office we have learned not to rank these relational transgressions but to
recognize and take seriously their impacts.
We have also learned that it is relatively unimportant to distinguish between the effects
of a conflict and the effects of an injury. Damage to the person(s) and damage to the
relationship occur in both cases making the distinction seem vague. Both the effects of
conflict and the effects of injury or violation give rise to questions about forgiveness and
reconciliation.
The things that people say and do to one another inevitably cause us to ask, “Does
this person know who I am?” “How am I going to outlive the impacts of this experience?”
“Does this person know the harm s/he caused?” “How am I ever going to forgive this
person?”
Application 10.2 I Thought This Happened to Other Girls
It has been a stressful semester. You are in the heaviest part of your history major and near the end
of your junior year. You’ve been testing the water with a new guy. Like you, he’s a good student, but
seems pretty fresh at relationships. He knows you need a break from the grind. After texting with
an idea, he comes upstairs to your room and says, “Hey, one of my buddies said it would be OK if
we went over to the party at his frat house. You’ve been working awful hard. What do you think?”
You let the two angels of your nature argue on your shoulders as your new friend stands
there, hands on hips, waiting for a decision. Aware of the risks, you say, “Yeah, let’s go.”
You know the scene—the punch bowl, the music, introverts on the couch, the boys with clever
opening lines, the way people make comparisons. Telling yourself you’re just going to have one,
you dip what looks like grapefruit juice out of the bowl and pour the sweet liquid into the glass cup.
You stick close to your new friend, letting him buffer the crowd and the noise. Having had the first
drink on an empty stomach, and the second after appetizers that didn’t taste very good, you start to
feel disoriented. You excuse yourself to the bathroom. While there you feel the fatigue, the alcohol,
and whatever else they put into the punch. Hungry and drunk, you find a bedroom and lie down.
When you wake up you’re on a bed in one of the bedrooms, your skirt pulled up. In the lan-
guage of Ta-Nehisi Coates (2015, 65), you feel as if your body has been “pillaged.” It’s late, your
new guy friend long gone. You wash up as best you can, head downstairs, and look for someone
you know. Somebody from your seminar is still in the kitchen cleaning up with a guy you don’t
know. You ask for her help. She dries her hands and leads you home as you begin to cry.
(continued)
Application 10.2 I Thought This Happened to Other Girls
Because you’ve heard it all before from friends, the student newspaper, or Krakauer’s book
Missoula, you know what you’re facing. All the questions start to pour in like flood water:
Should I head to the health center to tell the story and ask for a rape kit?
Should I call my parents and ask for help?
What if the County Attorney gets involved?
Would a trial wreck the trajectory of my studies?
What if the guy who did this turns out to be the guy I’ve been interested in?
What is it going to take to get at the truth and how can I face all the efforts to conceal it?
What if I face pressure to forgive the guy who did this, especially if the perpetrator is my
new-found friend?
What is my own contribution to what happened?
How am I going to get through this?
Who’s going to believe me?
Where do I begin?
The questions pile up like snow. Everything starts to feel suffocating. In a small group discuss your
answers to these questions and others that may occur to you. What will you do first? How will you
approach your new friend? What’s it going to take? What are your resources? How will you gather
them to help you face this situation?
Some Misconceptions about Forgiveness

In their formative work at the University of Wisconsin, Enright and others help us to
understand what forgiveness is by reminding us of what it is not (Enright, Gassin, and Wu
1992, 102; Enright 2001, 23–34):
∙ Forgiveness does not dismiss or minimize an event or situation. It acknowledges the
truth about what happened and the consequences that followed. Forgiveness does not
excuse or condone the behavior or actions of another. It does not say, “Oh well, he
just couldn’t help it.”
∙ Forgiveness is not indifferent about justice. It might very well hold someone to
account, seek restitution or a form of reparation while releasing the resentment that
often accompanies a protracted conflict or violation.
In a collection of first-person essays from crime victims, Zehr (2001) recognizes that pur-
suit of vindication or redress may actually be a relief from the humiliation and shame
of having been victimized. Pursuing justice does not necessarily deny the possibility of
forgiveness. Drawing a distinction between punitive or retributive justice and “restorative
justice,” Shriver (1995, 30–32) and others point out that retribution may exacerbate con-
flict, but “restorative justice” may help people through their victimization and make it pos-
sible for the offender to remain in or return to the community. (For a thorough exploration
of the difference between retributive and restorative justice, see Zehr 1999.) In addition,
forgiveness is not the same as a pardon, which refers to a legal transaction that releases
someone from a penalty.
Forgiveness is not a sign of weakness. Choosing to forgive another person may plunge
one into the deepest reflection about who one is and how that identity is sustained. It
requires us to consider who we are, independent of what has been done to us and indepen-
dent of who the other person thinks we are. Forgiveness requires an act of imagination
because it invites us to consider a future that is not merely a reaction to the past. Forgive-
ness requires us to undertake a long journey. It cannot possibly be for the faint of heart.
A misuse of forgiveness can make the process more difficult. After a crime— a shoot-
ing at a school, for example—people other than the victim sometimes presume to offer
forgiveness on behalf of the one who was harmed. This gift is often motivated by the best
of intentions and may be an attempt to spare an individual, family, or community suffering
it cannot avoid. However, whatever the intentions behind the decision to offer forgiveness
on behalf of someone else, this form of forgiveness may actually compound the original
injury. It violates the moral agency of the person who has been harmed and it minimizes
or may even circumvent the victim’s struggle, choice, and freedom. This problem is at
the heart of Wiesenthal’s (1998) book, The Sunflower. Wiesenthal, a death camp prisoner
during World War II, is summoned to the side of a dying S.S. soldier who confesses to hei-
nous crimes against Jews. After listening to the soldier, Wiesenthal leaves him without the
reassurance and absolution he craves. Later, Wiesenthal wonders if he has done the right
thing by withholding forgiveness on behalf of his Jewish brothers and sisters. In the book
Wiesenthal summons renowned people to reflect on this problem. In general they conclude
that forgiveness, for all its value, cannot be offered by one person on behalf of another.
Cose (2004, 49) also reflects on this problem. While he upholds the consensus in The Sun-
flower, he adds that we may choose to offer forgiveness for the harm that the person caused
us. In other words, we might say something like, “On my child’s behalf I cannot forgive
you for what you did to her; but I can forgive you for the pain you have caused me.” The
distinction he makes may seem small; but we uphold the right of people to make a decision
about forgiveness on their own behalf.
Another cautionary note—given the frequency with which women are victimized and
that they often fall under pressure to forgive, either within themselves or from others,
we want to acknowledge that some authors argue against forgiveness. In an article that
stirred up considerable controversy in religious circles, Lord (1991) described a situation
in which a woman came to him asking if she should forgive the man who shot and killed
her sons and nearly killed her as well. Later, and while in prison, the man made an appeal
to this woman on the basis of his religious conversion and asked her to forgive him. After
a period of study, Lord concluded that the woman was not obligated to forgive in this situ-
ation. Other authors (McFall 1991) believe it is better to emphasize righteous anger and
remembrance over forgiveness as a way of holding people to moral account. As she says,
bitterness can serve “as necessary reminder that something hoped for and greatly valued
has been lost” (156).
While withholding forgiveness may seem necessary at times, or a means of self-
protection, significant benefits may come to people who forgive, even in cases of domestic
violence and abuse. Comparing two treatment modalities, Reed and Enright (2006) show
that a process of forgiveness therapy is comparatively better than alternative therapies at
addressing the learned helplessness, debilitating resentment, shame, self-perception as a

victim, and low self-esteem that almost always accompany mistreatment at the hands of a
partner or spouse. They convincingly demonstrate that careful movement through a forgive-
ness process may replace the negative effects of abuse, depression, and anxiety in particular,
with a sense of courage, increased competence and self-esteem, a sense of unconditional
self-worth, and even expanding altruistic tendencies. While forgiveness has benefits for
people who have suffered from abuse, the authors also point to possible benefits for people
who are children of alcoholics or have suffered from other unjust suffering or trauma.
One last misconception needs clarification. Although the two words are often used
together, as in the title of this chapter, or in the name of a course, forgiveness and recon-
ciliation are not the same thing. In the context of interpersonal conflict, forgiveness is a
process undertaken by one person in relation to another, with or without interaction with
that person. On the other hand, reconciliation is a process of reestablishing relationship,
renewing trust, and settling differences so that cooperation and a sense of harmony are
restored. Reconciliation brings two parties together in a way that forgiveness may not. For
this reason, in speaking of forgiveness and reconciliation, it is essential to emphasize that
forgiveness does not necessarily reestablish a relationship. Forgiveness neither obligates
one to reconciliation nor necessitates it. As countless students have told us, “If I have to
reconcile, I won’t even consider forgiveness.” Forgiveness, then, may benefit the one who
violates the terms of a relationship, but first and foremost it is primarily for the benefit of
the person who has been harmed. Reconciliation, on the other hand, reflects the mutual
interests of two parties and embodies a willingness to reengage in the relationship in the
belief that further injury is less likely to occur and that the benefits of a new association
outweigh the risks.
When There Is an Imbalance of Power

This distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation is particularly crucial when there is
a serious imbalance in power between two parties or between an individual and an institu-
tion. With numerous anecdotes from students in mind, we have learned that children are
often confused about the role of power in the forgiveness process. Trying to make sense
of their own neglect or sexual exploitation, children can overlook the imbalance of power
between themselves and a coach, babysitter, teacher, uncle, stepfather, or any other adult
who took advantage of proportionately greater power to cause harm. Wrongly assuming
that power in the situation was equal, children may put themselves under undue pressure to
forgive. A child’s need for physical and emotional support may make children particularly
prone to forgive and reconcile, especially when the person with greater power uses coer-
cion. Possibly for developmental reasons, children are unable to perceive that the person
with greater power must assume more responsibility for harm to the person or relationship,
not less. Transferring this responsibility to the child, more often than not, creates another
layer of harm that the child may carry into adulthood.
Deeply concerned about hierarchical institutions, the church in particular, Keene
(1995) tells a story about a woman who was sexually abused as an adolescent by her
priest, a man who was clearly in a position of superior power. He describes the pressure
to forgive that can be brought to bear on women in this situation. The church’s teachings
on forgiveness can be used against someone in the form of added pressure, as though a
woman resisting forgiveness is guilty of moral failure. This pressure may be compounded
when combined with the assertion that forgiveness is good for one’s mental health and
spiritual well-being.
Keene warns that pressure to forgive, especially when it is applied by those with more
power, may serve to protect the hierarchical structures that made the abuse possible in the
first place. Sometimes people in positions of greater authority or power expect those with
less power to forgive. This expectation can be used to preserve the imbalance of power. If
the less powerful are pressured to forgive, then those with more power can escape neces-
sary accountability and the just consequences of their actions. Furthermore, pressure to
forgive a person who retains a position of power may, in effect, ask an injured person to
bear the additional suffering of remaining in contact with the abuser. The additional bur-
den of contact and connection, added to the original injury, may become unbearable. At
the very least, it is an affront to justice. In such situations, closer proximity threatens the
person who has already suffered harm. While we continue to hold the view that forgiveness
is a choice and not an obligation, situations like those cited above make it extremely clear
why forgiveness and reconciliation must not be easily blended. In situations like these,
forgiveness, if chosen, should never obligate a person to reconcile. We will say more about
reconciliation later in the chapter.
Thinking specifically of the therapy setting, McKay, Hill, Freedman, and Enright
(2007) have warned that encouraging people to forgive before they are ready to take this
action may be particularly damaging to women who in many cases already feel responsible
for relational repair. A sense of shame and guilt for not being ready to forgive may fall like
an additional weight on the shoulders of people who are struggling to recover self-esteem
in the aftermath of a serious offense. Failure to take into account relative differences in
power between the client and the perpetrator of harm may further compound the problem.
Requiring forgiveness or prescribing it in a therapeutic situation may at best be untimely
and at worst cause additional harm to an injured party. Concerned about such an outcome,
these authors contend that “female clients (in particular) should view forgiveness as an
informed choice they are making, not a gender-related mandate” (24).
Application 10.3 The Past Is Never Past
You are a dignified, reserved man in your 50s, married to an understanding woman, father of a
college-bound daughter, and revered in your field of avian biology. But you suffer with a secret
from your days as an undergraduate.
Participation in the campus ministry program at your private college helped you secure a
good summer job: You became the janitor of the chapel on campus. You had a wide portfolio of
responsibilities and flexible hours, perfect for someone who liked to go birding, listen to and play
music. You prepared for and cleaned up after weddings, managed the soundboard controlling
audio and video technology on Sunday mornings as well as arranged the radio feed. You were
often in the chapel at odd hours. This meant that you could do your work while organ recital
students practiced Handel and Bach. The danger of this schedule was that you were exposed to
the university’s lead organist.
(continued)
Application 10.3 The Past Is Never Past
More than once during that summer he approached you and made unwelcome sexual advances,
usually when the two of you were the last people in the dark, cavernous building. Each time you
made it clear you were not interested, but he persisted. One night you were putting away sound
equipment in the closet. You heard the door click closed behind you. You turned to see the organist
and instantly smelled gin on his breath. He was a large, overpowering man. After forcing you to the
floor and holding you between his knees he demanded that you perform oral sex on him. He released
you only when he was finally satisfied. Afterwards, you felt exhausted, as if you had been poisoned.
At first you told no one. You felt humiliated by what happened, tainted and stained by this man.
But your dreams repeated the scene in the closet; you lost the ability to concentrate on your school-
work and withdrew from friends. At a point of desperation you went to the campus minister. Needing to
trust someone, you poured out the story. At first he listened compassionately but then began to fidget,
clearly uncomfortable. After finishing your story and the account of how this memory was ruining your
life, the minister said, “Look, this is a terrible thing that has happened, but there is nothing I can do. We
can report this incident, but the organist is so well regarded by his graduate students, so much a friend
of the college president, so renowned for his recordings that no one will believe you. Or, if they believe
you, they will create a cover-up. I will make sure that you get the best of care at the counseling center,
but I’m afraid no one will disturb this man’s position in the life of the college.” In response you enter a
dark period, a time of depression from which it takes years to recover.
Though you eventually go on to create your own family, secure a university professorship,
publish papers on avian distribution in changing habitats, you remain haunted by this incident.
One day your understanding wife asks, “Have you thought about writing this story?” Over the next
several days you give her question some thought. This seems like exactly the right thing to do. You
don’t yet know whether you will write the story as fiction or memoir, despite the public exposure
that will come with telling the story. You ask for and receive a sabbatical and begin to throw your-
self into the project with a great sense of relief.
Imagine yourself in this man’s situation.
Do you see yourself more as a survivor, triumphant in what you have made of this adversity,
or, because of the lasting effect of memories, still a victim because such events are never
really in the past? Do past events continue to cloud the landscape of your life in the present?
How do you deal with the memory that people in power decided to protect the man who did this
to you, that they chose the order and prestige of the college over your mistreatment and suffering?
What are your feelings in response to the friend who said, “I don’t see any alternative but to
forgive the organist and the campus minister?”
In the years between this incident and now what strategies and efforts seemed the most
helpful? What worked for you? 3
3
This case was guided by NPR Author Interview with Raymond Douglas. 5/22/16: npr.org “On the
Ever-Present Trauma of Rape: ‘You Are Not Alone. Don’t Give Up.’” Douglas is not the only man to bear
the scars of such an experience. Rape of men, though not as widely reported as female victims, is not
uncommon. In the United States alone, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in 2010
that nearly 1 in 71 men in America has been a victim of rape. That translates to almost 1.6 million victims.
Psychologists Smith and Freyd (2014) have studied cases like this one and have devel-
oped a language to describe what they call “Institutional Betrayal.” When an institution
like a university, a church, an athletic department, or corporation protects itself, blocks
efforts to hold people accountable, rejects efforts to communicate about a grievance, it
compounds the traumatizing effects of the original incident and complicates the forgive-
ness process. Suddenly the one harmed faces an amorphous system, not just the effects of
an individual’s action.
The Matter of Memory

Just as the words forgiveness and reconciliation are often joined, people often say, “For-
give and forget.” This is a particularly unfortunate conjunction. The relationship between
memory and forgiveness is extremely complex and important.
Memory is absolutely essential to the forgiveness process. People say “Forgive and
forget” with the best of intentions, hoping to reduce another person’s pain or their own. But
“Forgive and forget” seems like dangerous counsel to an abused woman who believed she
was safe, only to discover upon returning to a relationship that she has again been physi-
cally or emotionally harmed. “Forgive and forget” is unwise advice to an employee who
trusted his employer to communicate expectations in private only to find that the employer
consistently exposed the employee in front of a group. To ask a child abused by a priest or
other religious figure to forget what happened, for example, creates a secondary wound
because it asks the child not to trust his or her own perceptions. If no one seems to remem-
ber what happened, if no one receives a person’s story about a transgression, the person
who was harmed may come to feel confused, even that his or her identity is in jeopardy.
While it is true that we are not what happened to us, we almost certainly are what we make
of what happened to us. People who have suffered some form of sexual abuse or violence,
for example, often feel as though the recovery of memory after a period of suppression or
repression seems like the first step in the recovery of self. There can be no deep healing
without it. The denial of memory comes to feel like the denial of being and is a genuine
threat to personhood. Memory denied or ignored is like an untreated infection. It festers
and threatens the whole body. Using exactly this metaphor, Isabel Amaral-Guterres, truth
commissioner for East Timor, says in relation to conflict within his country, “For some
people, it may seem better to leave the past untouched. But the past does not go away and,
if untreated, may eat away at those people and maybe even destroy them. Remembering is
not easy, but forgetting may be impossible” (Cose 2004, 182).
Archbishop Desmond Tutu makes much the same point throughout his book on South
Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Tutu 1999). In the case of South Africa,
the commissioners felt so strongly about the value of historical memory that they were
willing to trade criminal prosecution of apartheid’s torturers and executioners in exchange
for the truth about what happened. While it may have seemed a “devil’s bargain” to offer
partial amnesty in exchange for truth, Tutu asserted that “To be able to forgive one needs
to know whom one is forgiving and why. That is why the truth is so central to this whole
exercise” (Cose 2004, 182).
Yet the matter of memory in relation to forgiveness is complex. While forgiveness
does not require the denial of memory, the recollection of past injuries can be used as the
basis for causing harm to others. The misuse of memory may contribute to what Hannah
Arendt calls “the predicament of irreversibility” (Shriver 1995, 34), in which the memory
of one violation can be used as the pretext or justification for revenge, perpetuating and
deepening the cycles of injury and retribution. Forgiveness does not throw memory out
of the equation but cancels the debt that revenge purports to repay. Forgiveness takes the
accounting back to zero and offers the possibility of a new starting point.
All this becomes especially clear when one looks on the international stage. In the
1990s the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 was used by Bosnian Serbs to justify the murder of
Muslim Croats. The memory of European favoritism toward Tutsis in Rwanda provided
the pretext for their murder by Hutus. The memory of the destruction of the World Trade
Towers may have seemed to justify the mistreatment of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison
in Iraq or at Guantanamo Bay, which became the basis for beheading U.S. citizens and
allies by Islamists. As one can see, the misuse of memory can become the basis for inflict-
ing more harm. This misuse of memory occurs in interpersonal relationships as well. The
challenge, then, is to learn to remember in what one author calls “a living way”—in a way
that serves individuals, families, and societies in the future (Anonymous 1993, 24). To
get over something in the hope of creating something new in our lives requires that we
remember the harm we experienced without letting that memory create energy for revenge
(Wiesel 2008, 2016). Memory is absolutely essential to the forgiveness process because it
is central to the identity of individuals, peoples, and nations. Furthermore, it may reduce
the susceptibility to repeated injury in the future. Nevertheless, memories should not be
used to justify more harm, for this creates a circle from which no one may escape.
Application 10.4 Disappointment at Your Wedding
For a year you have been preparing for your wedding day. You, your mother, and friends have been
working on every detail of the celebration. During the rehearsal you feel as though all this prepara-
tion has paid off. People know their parts; dresses are pressed and ready to wear; the florist and
photographer are sure to fulfill their promises; the right rings are in the right pockets. On the day
of the wedding the groom and groomsmen arrive in their tuxedos and tease each other in playful
and affectionate ways. You and your bridesmaids make ready, talk excitedly, and adjust yourselves
in front of the mirror. As the prelude begins, your father, who is supposed to accompany you down
the aisle, is nowhere in sight. At the last second, just as the doors are about to open for the proces-
sional, he shows up disheveled and intoxicated. You alternate between disbelief and despair. On
one hand you want to proceed into the sanctuary as if everything is going according to plan. On the
other hand you want to give your father a piece of your mind for ruining your day. Seeing the look
on your face, your maid of honor acknowledges your distress, but sensing how much is at stake,
whispers, “Take his arm.” You swallow your upset and take the first step toward your husband-to-be.
After the wedding and honeymoon, having processed some of your feelings with your
husband, you know you have to speak to your father. Family life cannot go on without this
conversation.
• Will you first contact him in person, by phone, e-mail, text message, or a formal letter? Why do
you choose this method? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each method?
(continued)
Application 10.4 Disappointment at Your Wedding
• Would it matter to you if your father had been publicly intoxicated before?
• Do you feel open enough and prepared to hear his side of the story? How will you maintain
your own story while listening to his story?
• What questions do you ask?
• What do you want him to know?
• Does it matter to you that this case involves your father (as opposed to a nonrelative)?4
4
Carr and Wang (2011) address the particular challenge of forgiveness in families and draw helpful
insights from relational dialectical theory.
Now that we have presented a few definitions for forgiveness and have discussed some
misconceptions and problems associated with it, we are ready to look more carefully at
how it works.
Decision or Process?
Is forgiveness a decision or a process? This is a complex question. An element of decision
enters almost every forgiveness process and a kind of process figures in every decision.
This is true even if the process seems to contain only the two steps of grieving the original
injury or transgression and letting go, as Luskin (2002) contends.
In cases involving marital infidelity, but influenced by the forgiveness that sometimes
takes place between family members when someone is dying, DiBlasio (2000) argues for a
decision to let go of resentment and bitterness rather than waiting for a more or less lengthy
process to unfold. He contends that “emotional readiness” is not necessarily a factor in
the decision to forgive. He argues that forgiveness is more “an act of will,” temporarily
separating reason and feeling. Not wanting to bog clients down in a protracted emotional
process, he says, “When clients discover that they need not be victims of their feelings but
can decide to move forward despite the hurt, they become empowered” (151). DiBlasio
then goes on to describe an intense and ambitious couples therapeutic session that may last
2 to 3 hours. It asks that partners establish the wrongful action that needs to be forgiven
and give the offender an opportunity to provide an explanation. The long session provides
for a question and answer period about the infidelity, a description of the impact of the
infidelity, and a plan to stop or prevent similar behavior in the future. The injured party
recognizes the offender’s remorse, shame, and regret. The betrayer makes a formal request
for forgiveness. This is followed by a ceremonial act in which both parties recognize that a
decision to forgive has taken place.
In a meta-analysis of this question about decision and process, Baskin and Enright
(2004) explain that DiBlasio’s proposal is one among several that emphasizes the central-
ity of a decision to forgive. In the context of psychotherapy, a decision-based model may
save time and serve to empower the client(s) trying to move toward forgiveness. Helping
people decide to forgive gives them something to do at a time when they may feel helpless
to change their situation. Nevertheless, this approach may seem excessively prescriptive,
unrealistic about the power of strong emotions, and even heavy-handed. For this reason
Enright (2001) emphasizes that willingness to forgive is more important than “willfulness.”
Outside of the therapy setting, people sometimes commit themselves to forgiving another
person by a certain date. For example, someone in the Christian tradition may decide
to forgive someone in the weeks between Ash Wednesday and Easter or before receiving
the sacrament of Holy Communion. Or someone in the Jewish tradition may decide to
forgive by Yom Kippur. There may be analogous dates in other religious traditions that
provide the impetus for a decision to forgive. People can decide to forgive by a specific
date, especially one sanctioned by a religious institution or spiritual tradition. Some people
decide to forgive a previous partner because they want to “move on” into a new and better
relationship. It may not be possible to work through all the hurts in a previous relationship,
but forgiveness may equip and prepare someone moving into the new relationship because
lingering resentment may interfere with a successful relationship in the present.
How Process May Lead to Decision

Layton (1999) describes a three-step model of forgiveness that is particularly helpful
because it is easy to remember and makes practical sense. She uses her former husband’s
betrayal and her subsequent divorce to explain how she entered these three stages on the
road to forgiveness:
Injured Innocence. After experiencing a deep personal hurt at the hands of
another person, after being humiliated or having one’s trust broken, we may begin the
journey toward forgiveness. When we are in the stage of Injured Innocence every-
thing we have believed about life suddenly seems open to question, especially the
idea that if we are good, then we won’t ever suffer. Victims of crime may especially
feel as though an earlier state of innocence has been injured if not destroyed. In this
stage we are likely to ask, “Am I no longer safe in the world? What happened to the
world I used to live in? Will I ever be able to go back to the way things used to be?”
Obsession. In this stage we replay things that were done to us, the words that
we heard, all the impacts and details of our suffering. It feels as though our lives are
defined by what someone else did to us. In this stage, thinking of the one who harmed
us, we are likely to ask, “Will he/she ever be held accountable? How could he/she
have said or done this? What did I possibly do to deserve this? Will I ever stop pictur-
ing the moment of betrayal?” In his brilliant animations Harchol (2011) says some-
one “lives rent free in our heads.” In the obsession stage, many betrayed people are
consumed with the desire to get the details, find the evidence, see the e-mails, track
down phone records, ask friends about what happened, and try to reconstruct the cal-
endar of events that outlines the betrayal. Friends and counselors often feel helpless
in this stage when the person feels driven by an inner sense of injustice to “find the
facts.” Though the facts feel hurtful, the drive toward truth is not one that is easy to
interrupt. While “obsession” may have a negative connotation for us, this stage of the
process takes seriously the impact of what happened. In this stage one reality is trying
to catch up with another—what we believe we were experiencing and what actually
happened. The betrayed person is trying to make sense of what he or she thought was
“rock solid” in relation to what happened. This shakes the world of the betrayed per-
son; it constitutes a traumatic event. The work of this stage cannot be rushed. In this
stage we are trying to measure the size of what we suffered. We are trying to control
through obsession what felt uncontrollable at the time of the transgression.
Transcendence. When we are in the stage of Transcendence we no longer con-
tend with the shock of realizing that the world is not as fair as we first believed. We
no longer replay every scene in the death of a marriage, or some other relationship.
We come to believe, despite everything, that life will continue and that it may still
be a “prize” worth having. In Layton’s case, it was at this stage of her adjustment to
the loss of her marriage that she began to give up her hatred, the desire for revenge,
and her sense of being at the center of the world’s unjust treatment of the innocent.
She began to realize that the distinctions we make between perpetrator and victim are
often drawn too sharply, that the hardness around each identity can soften in the balm
of forgiveness, and that both sides need compassion. In time she learned to tran-
scend what had happened to her and to join the rest of the human family. It was this
movement from injured innocence and through the self-absorbed cycles of obsession
that helped her get to the point where she could begin to let go of her own pain. She
began to realize that her own experience of suffering acquaints her with the suffer-
ing of other people. At this point in the process we feel compassion for ourselves
and others. In this stage we are likely to wonder, “What will this experience mean to
me in the future? How will I be able to integrate it into the whole picture of my life?
How can I make good use of this experience?”
Other researchers in the field delineate many more steps in the process. Enright (2001)
provides a notable example of this model, describing 20 separate “guideposts” in four dif-
ferent categories by which people mark their journey. Having tested these guideposts or
markers along a path in many different settings, we believe it is worthwhile to list them.
In addition, these 20 steps apply whether one is the injured party seeking to forgive, or the
one who has caused harm and is in need of forgiveness. These steps can also help a person
seeking self-forgiveness (Enright 1996). Below are the steps and the kinds of questions
one asks at each stage:
Guideposts along the Forgiveness Journey

A: Questions we ask when we are the injured party and consider forgiving others,
including ourselves
B: Questions we ask when we have caused harm to another person
The Uncovering Phase
1. Examine psychological defenses
A: What pain am I feeling and how am I defending myself against it?
B: What pain have I caused another and am I in denial about it?
2. Face anger so as to release it
A: Am I able to admit to myself what I am feeling, anger in particular?
B: Am I able to face the other person’s anger and my own sense of guilt or remorse?
3. Admit shame when appropriate

A: Am I able to face the shame I feel about what happened?
B: Am I able to face the shame I feel about what I did?
4. Become aware of emotional energy tied up in this (Cathexis)
A: Am I aware of how much of my own emotional energy is tied up in this memory?
B: Is my emotional energy tied up in what I did?
5. Become conscious of repetitive thoughts
A: Am I repeating in my mind or obsessing over what happened?
B: Am I repeating in my mind or obsessing over what I did?
6. Compare oneself to the other
A: Am I comparing myself and my life since the transgression to the life of the person
who harmed me?
B: Am I comparing myself and my life since causing harm to the life of the person I
harmed?
7. Realize that your life may be adversely changed, sometimes permanently
A: Am I willing to acknowledge how my life has been changed by what happened?
B: Am I willing to acknowledge that I have changed another person’s life, perhaps
forever?
8. Gain insight about how this injury/transgression has changed your worldview
A: Can I face how this event has changed my worldview or sense of life’s fairness?
B: Can I face how what I did changed another person’s worldview?
Decision Phase
9. Recognize that old strategies may not be working
A: Am I willing to see that my old ways of dealing with this event may not be working?
Can I cope with my pain in a new way?
B: Can I change the course I’m on in relation to the person I harmed?
10. Consider forgiveness as an option
A: Am I willing to consider forgiveness as an option?
B: Am I willing to receive forgiveness, rather than continue to defend myself?
11. Commit to forgiveness
A: Am I willing to work at forgiving the one who caused harm?
B: Am I willing to receive the gift of the other person’s forgiveness, waiting for it, if
necessary?
Work Phase
12. Reframe the picture of the other person

A: Can I begin to see the other person in context (what life was like for him/her)?
B: Can I begin to see the person I harmed as vulnerable and needing time to forgive?
13. Empathize
A: Am I able to feel some empathy for the other person?
B: Am I able to feel the other person’s hurt to which I contributed?
14. Let compassion emerge
A: Am I able to extend compassion to the person who caused harm?
B: Am I willing to suffer patiently with the person I harmed?
15. Let the pain in
A: Am I able to let myself accept or absorb the pain I feel?
B: Can I let the other person be angry, accepting the long path to receiving forgiveness?
Outcome Phase
16. Find meaning in what happened

A: Can I begin to formulate a new meaning for myself in relation to what I suffered?
B: Can I find new meaning in the harm I caused and the process of learning to
receive forgiveness?
17. Realize that you have needed forgiveness in the past
A: Have I ever harmed another person as I have been harmed?
B: Have I ever been in the position of needing to forgive someone else?
18. Realize that you are not alone
A: Is it possible that I am one of many who have gone through this process?
B: Where can I find social support while waiting to receive forgiveness?
19. Realize a new purpose
A: Can I find a new purpose for my life after this injury?
B: Can I live a new life from this point forward?
20. Release
A: Can I open myself now to the rest of life, having forgiven, even to the possibility
of joy and hope after moving through this process?
B: Will I let myself experience relief and freedom from guilt and remorse, having
learned from this whole process? (adapted from Enright 1996)
While such a long list may seem overly detailed, in practice we have found it very helpful
to people. It helps them see where they are on this list and what might be needed to proceed
further. Some therapists have even rendered this list in a graphic form that resembles a map
(Velez 2009). A visual aid helps chart a sometimes-long journey with twists and turns,
setbacks and advances.
The author recognizes that some people simply decide to forgive and then work
through, more or less consciously, the process of dealing with feelings of anger and
resentment. In a sense this is a case of the chicken and the egg. Some people need to
work through most of the feelings before entertaining forgiveness as an option (Step 10),
while others receive emotional benefit from deciding to forgive, then sorting through the
emotional debris. As with any attempt to describe stages of change, these models can be
misconstrued. People in the process of grieving, for instance, need to be reassured that
there is no right order to the sequence and that it is often necessary to cycle back through
earlier stages. In much the same way, before we reach a decision to forgive, we may need
to review an offense repeatedly, search a long time for reasons to be empathic toward the
offender, or dismantle and reconstruct our view of the world several times. It may take us a
long time to realize that the only thing we have in common with the person who hurt us is
our humanity. We may have made a decision to stay with the person who betrayed us, for
good reasons involving love and commitment, but the process of forgiveness goes on even
when people stay together. The struggle to forgive may be arrested at almost any point, be
completed only partially, or come so easily that some stages seem unnecessary. Whether
we decide to forgive and then have to work through the emotions later, or work through
the emotions before deciding to forgive, forgiveness can be both a decision and a process.
In yet another variation on a process model, Holmgren (1993), like Layton and
Enright, describes the importance of working through feelings such as anger and grief after
a transgression and believes that forgiveness is not genuine unless people do this work. But
she adds a step in the process that many students have told us seems essential. Holmgren
argues that a person who has suffered at the hands of another must recover the self-esteem
that has been damaged or removed by the person causing harm. It is easy to ascribe too
much power to the wrongdoer’s opinion about us. To counter this effect she says:
. . .the victim must clarify for herself that the claim implicit in the act of wrongdoing is false.
She must recognize that she is just as valuable as every other person and that her needs and feel-
ings matter. . . Likewise she must come to see the wrongdoer as seriously confused about her
status as a person (343).
In less philosophical language this means that the perpetrator of a wrong is usually
mistaken or ignorant about who we are. For us to recover our self-esteem as a part of the
process of forgiveness we need to remember our own status as a person and reject the other
person’s belief about who we are.
Application 10.5 Unjustly Accused
You have done very well in school, breezed through the courses that came easily and labored
through the ones that came hard. Encouraged by one of your professors, you apply for a summer
position as a lab technician job in another town. On the day of the interview you check your phone,
figure out the route to this facility, and leave yourself plenty of time to get to your destination. The
interview goes really well. The supervisor takes time to ask lots of questions about your field of
study and, more importantly, the independent research you are doing for a senior project. He wants
to know more about your work because of its relevance to the work being done in the lab.
As a result of the extended conversation at the lab, you leave this other town later than you
planned. It is getting dark. Heading home you know you are at risk for being stopped by the local
cops, because of your race. Sure enough, while waiting at a red light you see a bright light in your
rearview mirror as a squad car points its spotlight toward the back of your car and the license plate.
The next thing you know the flashers are on and when the light turns green you have to pull over.
(continued)
Application 10.5 Unjustly Accused
Two cops aim flashlights at you as they approach. You roll down the window so you can hear
what they are saying. They demand your license and registration. When you say, “They are in my
gym bag,” they say, “Get out of the car and put your hands on the roof.” This has happened enough
times to your friends that you know the drill. You keep your mouth shut, get out, and take the stance.
One officer pats you down, feeling for a gun or knife, slides his stick up the inside of your
spread legs. The other officer asks questions: “Where have you been?” “What have you been
doing?” “What’s your name?” You and your body are both being interrogated. Satisfied, he says to
his partner, “He looks like him, but this isn’t the guy. Behave yourself.” He lets you go.
When you get back in the car you’re shaking with humiliation and anger. For the first few min-
utes driving is impossible, so you wait until your heart rate goes down and you feel calm enough to
drive.
For the next couple of weeks, as you wait for an e-mail from the lab telling you that you got
the job, you have a hard time putting this incident out of your mind. Especially at night you replay
the scene. You have been cornered by a system, its machinery and power reaching into almost
every part of your life. Your father and friends said that something like this would happen sooner or
later, and now it has. You obsess over the event and struggle to find a way to transcend its effects.
With other students discuss the following:
Is it possible to forgive not just the officers who stopped you, but a whole system that
suspects people who are lumped into a class or category? Why or why not forgive a system?
Is there any reason to feel compassion for the officers who participate in this system? If so,
does this condone their behavior?
As you take the new position at the lab, what do you tell yourself as you make the commute
twice a day?
How do you keep yourself from internalizing the identity that the cops wanted you to take
on? What do you say to yourself to keep this from happening? How do you maintain your own
self-respect, as Holmgren recommends?
Getting Stuck: Eddies in the River

We (authors) live in a valley where powerful rivers descend from the mountains and con-
verge on a long journey to the ocean. The landscape affects how we view things. One of our
rivers drops through a gorge with major rapids with names like “Fang,” “Tumbleweed,”
and “Cliffside.” Wherever the river bends sharply or pushes up against a boulder, the cur-
rent creates an eddy. People who raft or paddle this river often rest or recover in the eddies,
areas where it is safe to pull over. This feature of our watershed has given us an image that
helps to explain forgiveness. If you live in an urban area, you might think instead of a city
park where people gather to rest on a hot day. You might think of a favorite coffeeshop
where you can go with your laptop and rest, tune out, and be out of the flow of the rest of
your life. Listening to students, clients, and other people, we find that people sometimes
get stuck in an eddy of long-term, low-grade, simmering resentment (see Figure 10.1).
In this eddy a person may circle round and round looking for an opportunity to get even.
Figure 10.1 Eddies in the River

Eddy of withdrawal
Eddy of revenge Eddy of victimhood
Here we may concentrate on the other person’s offense, how that person has fared since
doing us harm, and how he or she owes us a debt that may never be paid. The desire and
impulse to get even may feel completely justified.
If we do not get caught in this eddy of resentment and revenge, we may get caught in an
eddy of depression and withdrawal. In this eddy the hurt we have suffered seems so great that
it seems better to withdraw from life because it poses too many challenges. In this eddy a per-
son attempts to create a small and safe world out of the current and away from potential harm.
Around the next bend someone may become caught in the eddy of seeing oneself as
a victim. In this whirlpool a person may ascribe special status to having been victimized.
In this eddy people feel as though they have become what happened to them, and may use
their story to elicit sympathy from others, demand extra attention, induce guilt in others, or
excuse their own passivity (Exline and Baumeister 2000).
When we see a friend or family member in an eddy, we may grow impatient and be
tempted to push that person back out into the current. Having observed this process in many
situations, we believe that it is best to be patient, to see the eddies as resting places. When
we see others in this eddy or find ourselves stuck here, it is important to have a keen sense of
timing, to watch for a person’s own motivation to return to the flow of life. This observation
may be helpful to you as a supportive friend, family member, or third-party agent. A friend
who has expertise in the world of river-running tells us that in certain rapids, it may be neces-
sary to take off one’s life jacket, temporarily at least, so as to descend deeper into the current
and be carried back into the river. It can be terrifying to remove one’s emotional life jacket.
This image seems particularly helpful when we encounter people who seem to take a very
long time to forgive. This extended metaphor may help when you or others to explore more
completely the defenses we put on to protect ourselves against emotional pain. Sometimes
we need to drop more deeply into our suffering before being able to leave it behind.
The Personal and Interpersonal Dimensions

of Forgiveness
Reflecting on the models developed by Enright, applied by Palmer (1997), or distilled by
Layton, you might conclude that forgiveness is something we do by ourselves and without
interaction with the person who caused the harm. In some cases, after a violent incident
or fight, for example, or because of a person’s extreme defensiveness, unwillingness, or

inability to accept responsibility, interaction with such a person can seem unsafe, unwise,
or undesirable, but this does not foreclose the possibility of forgiveness; it means that
forgiveness takes place internally. Holmgren (1993) describes the value of this approach.
Internal or intrapersonal forgiveness is not dependent upon the responsiveness, contri-
tion, attitudes, or apologies of the person who caused the harm. This kind of forgiveness is
“unilateral” in that it focuses strictly on the beliefs, feelings, attitudes, decisions, and
behavior of the victim (345).
The beauty of intrapersonal or intrapsychic models is that they accurately describe
an intricate process that does not depend on the penitence, remorse, or direct actions of
the person who caused us harm. We can sometimes wait a very long time for a person to
express regret about stealing from us, causing a car accident, or filing for divorce. You
may never receive acknowledgment that a co-worker ingratiated himself with the boss
and nudged you out of favor, or that a friend flirted successfully with your intimate other.
Models of forgiveness that emphasize the internal process help us see that we are free
to begin the work leading to liberation whether or not the other person acknowledges
responsibility, seems aware of the impact of his or her actions, apologizes for harm done,
expresses regret, and asks to be forgiven. In effect intrapersonal models for forgiveness
say, “You can begin the work of breaking free from a legacy of harm on your own. You
don’t have to wait for someone else to act before you can begin the process of liberating
yourself.” In other words we may proceed without waiting on subsequent action, com-
munication, or acknowledgment from the person who caused the injury. We cease to be
the prisoner of someone else’s actions. We reclaim ourselves as the active center of our
own choices.
At the same time we must recognize that all of us belong to networks of relationships
and remain connected to other people. We live with, work across from, eat meals, or share
children with people who have caused us harm or whom we have harmed. In some cases
we can go on about our lives after being harmed without needing to interact with the one
who hurt us. But in a great many cases we are not so disconnected. The woman who left us
is still the mother of our children. The father who hurt us when we were young shows up
at a graduation. The person who wrecked our car lives down the hall. For complex reasons
having to do with our investment in the relationship, economics, our moral code, and the
history of the relationship, we may continue to interact with the people who hurt us or with
the people we harmed. Therefore, we now see more clearly than ever that the process of
forgiveness must be intrapersonal—within our own control—to preserve freedom from
painful connection to the behavior of another person. At the same time the forgiveness pro-
cess may be more interpersonal and require more interaction than we previously thought
because of the way our lives continue to intersect, overlap, and collide. There are some
relationships from which we cannot escape. This means that the interactive and communi-
cative aspects of this process are more important than ever.
A person who has been harmed has a great need to speak about the impact of an event.
The injured party feels a great need to be heard. The injured party may have questions
about why this harm took place, how it could have happened, what factors were involved,
and if the one who caused the harm understands the impact of his or her actions. These
kinds of questions are at the heart of victim offender dialogue programs, for example
(Obbie 2010).
Looking at the situation from the opposite side (and assuming that the transgressor has
the courage and ability to accept responsibility), the one who caused the harm may have a
great need to tell his or her story, not to justify the actions but to lighten the load of shame
or at least explain factors that influenced the harmful choices. In short, forgiveness is likely
to be a communicative process, not just a solitary labor hidden from sight. Careful listening,
free of judgment, makes possible more complete disclosure that can inform and liberate both
the listener and the teller. Courageous truth-telling, a deeply sincere apology, the full accep-
tance of responsibility, and complete acknowledgment of the impact of an event or action
can make possible a more kind and generous response—and possibly the direct or indirect
expression of forgiveness. In other words, where a relationship has not been entirely ruptured
and abandoned, full and honest disclosure and grace-filled response dance around each other,
listen to the same music of the relationship, and seek the gift of forgiveness for the perpetra-
tor and liberation from resentment for the one who was harmed (Brown 2011).
All of this takes time, much more time than we often want to recognize or invest. It may
take more time than we are willing to give, and more time than someone else is willing to
offer. An interactive process can almost never be completed in one conversation. It may take
many conversations and require repeated efforts to clarify and understand the same event.
In the course of this kind of interactive process people often find that each side may have
contributed to the injury, rift, or alienation. Sometimes, one person “drops out” or disengages
before the process is completed. We cannot force another person to participate in conver-
sations of forgiveness or reconciliation. We may be willing to explore the rupture in the
relationship while the other person may not. Because of its challenges, the communicative,
interactive nature of forgiveness is one of the growing edges of research and practice.
Implied Forgiveness
People renegotiate a relationship after an offense and work toward forgiveness in both
implicit and explicit forms of communication (Worthington and Drinkard 2000). Sharing
this perspective, Exline and Baumeister (2000) say, “In implicit forgiveness, one’s state-
ments or behaviors communicate either that no transgression was committed . . . or that the
transgression was so minor as to be of no consequence” (136). In effect a person is able
to interact with the person who caused the harm without explicit reference to the injury,
transcending it indirectly. Implicit forgiveness remains communicative, however. It can be
communicated by the tone of voice, gentleness in stressful situations, inclination toward
humor, and lightness of mood. Implicit forgiveness may be expressed through face-saving
behaviors. A willingness to engage and interact with another person may signal the begin-
nings of restored trust. These forms of communication are aspects of implicit forgiveness.
For example, a friend or co-worker may have exposed some private information about you
in a public or group setting. After processing some of the harm this caused, you may act in
ways that imply your forgiveness, suggesting you transcended the hurt.
Gestures
Communicative gestures, not necessarily verbal, may indicate that the process of forgive-
ness is underway or may have been completed in an implicit way. For example, one person
in a romantic relationship may kiss another as a sign that an earlier conflict or disap-
pointment has been transcended. We may visit someone who caused us harm, attend that
person’s musical performance, graduation, wedding, or thesis defense. In these instances,
the willingness to be physically present becomes a sign that a wound is beginning to mend.
A willingness to collaborate in a work setting after a time of estrangement may be a sign
of forgiveness. Two colleagues may agree to work again on a joint project without first
verbally processing an old conflict. One neighbor might bring a meal to another as a sign
that a boundary line dispute has been resolved satisfactorily, the offer of food being an
ancient gesture that helps to mend a relationship. Very often an appropriate touch signals
the shift away from resentment. Historically speaking, a handshake is such a gesture. It sig-
nals that the open hand does not contain a weapon. A small gift is a highly communicative
act—presenting a vase of flowers, offering a glass of water, sending a humorous cartoon or
sketch, offering a ticket to a concert or sporting event—any of these gestures may commu-
nicate at least as effectively as words that something has been released and that the door is
open. Also, it may be the case that one gesture begets another, setting in motion a positive,
spiral that replaces longstanding resentment.
Communicating Forgiveness Directly

Exploring long-term couple relationships, Waldron and Kelley (2005, 2008) have made
major contributions to our understanding of the role of direct communication in the for-
giveness process. They delineate various forms of forgiveness-granting communication
that involve such things as open discussion, explicit expressions of forgiveness, nonverbal
displays, and efforts to minimize the harm to the relationship. They have discovered that
conditional expressions of forgiveness such as “I told him I would forgive him if the offense
never happened again” or “I told her that I would forgive her only if things changed” may
help people “reclaim respect, rebuild trust, and assure themselves that the transgression
will not be repeated” (2005, 739). At the same time, however, looking at relational out-
comes, they discovered that conditional expressions of forgiveness are actually associated
with a deterioration of the relationship. How can this be? Perhaps conditional expressions
of forgiveness imply lack of trust, increase the uncertainty in the relationship, and may set
in motion various forms of self-protective behavior. This finding makes it very clear that
how people communicate about their grievances and how they communicate their forgive-
ness after grievances take place have enormous implications for the future of relationships
and the prospect of reconciliation.
Though a direct expression of forgiveness correlates positively with relationship out-
come, some forms of direct expression of forgiveness may harm a relationship. In some
situations a person who has been harmed or offended may offer forgiveness with the best
of intentions but unconsciously express contempt for the other person. It may sometimes
sound sarcastic, as in “Oh, don’t you know, I forgave you long ago?” This kind of forgive-
ness feels condescending, even suspicious. It can humiliate or insult the dignity of the
other person. This way of expressing forgiveness has a top-down quality to it and may
be a disguised attempt to rebalance power in a relationship, power that was lost in the
course of an injury or transgression. Unfortunately, such expressions of forgiveness rarely
repair a relationship. If people value their relationship, hostility disguised as forgiveness
works against relational satisfaction.
Having both an appreciation for the intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions of for-
giveness, it now appears that these two approaches may each have their time and place and
may weave around each other in a dynamic fashion. Assuming that interaction is emotionally
and physically safe, we sometimes take a direct route to relational repair, engage in discus-
sion, risk self-disclosure, listen as much as speak, and work actively within the framework
of the relationship. We hope for clarity, understanding, and the freedom that comes with
open discussion and overt expressions of forgiveness. On the other hand we sometimes need
to drop down into the interior work, take time to be more reflective than interactive, before
continuing to work our way along the path. At the same time we sometimes take an indirect
route, processing the intense feelings privately or with a neutral ally, working toward the
guideposts on a long journey that Enright and others describe, and then assume the risks
of interaction. After the interior work we can reveal our discoveries, ask for an explanation,
issue an apology, and so on. The two approaches serve each other; prepare for and precede
each other. Both serve the larger purpose of relational repair (see Figure 10.2).
Figure 10.2 Direct and Indirect Routes for Relational Repair

Direct Route:
Possibilities
• Interpersonal communication about situation
• Learn more through interaction
• Receive an account
• Receive/offer forgiveness, apology
• Move toward relational repair
Risks
• Exposure to defensiveness and resistance
• Exposure to inadequate apology self-justification
Path of Relationship
Over Time
t
rec
Di
* Injury, Ind
ire
grievance ct
or conflict
Indirect Route:
Possibilities
• Explore the intrapersonal process as a way of reducing resentment
• Search internally for meaning or event(s). Process emotions privately or with a supportive
third party
• Prepare psychologically for interaction
• From a place of safety look for change in self or other person
Risks
• Cut oneself off from helpful information
• Deny oneself benefit of restored relationship
To summarize this section, forgiveness may come about as a result of an intensely pri-
vate process or it may come about through interpersonal communication. Forgiveness may
be enhanced by verbal communication, such as an expression of remorse. Or, a wide range
of communicative and creative gestures may be the means by which people request or
convey forgiveness. In one relationship, the process may start in the private room of one’s
memories. In another relationship, the decision to forgive may be facilitated by an open
apology. Both the private and interactive dimensions of this process influence each other.
The internal work of forgiveness may eventually make someone more receptive to an apol-
ogy if it is offered, accelerating the process of repair. Likewise, the internal process that
helps a person forgive may change the conditions in a relationship so that it is more likely
that an apology is offered. This sequence of steps can accelerate the repair and mending of
a relationship (Morse and Metts 2011).
In this review of the “intrapersonal” and “interpersonal” forms and expressions of
forgiveness, we came close to talking about reconciliation, especially when describing ges-
tures. Before exploring reconciliation more completely, however, it seems wise to say more
about apology and express some words of caution.
The Value and Limits of Apology

In a comprehensive article that explores the role of communication between aggrieved
parties, and that corroborates the research of others, Kelley (1998) points out that people
who have been harmed by others are more willing to renegotiate a relationship when they
know the following three things: (1) that there is essential agreement as to the nature of
the violation, (2) that the other person acknowledges the hurt and pain that the violation
caused, and (3) that the offending person will make an apology for the hurt and pain that
the violation caused. These three elements sound something like, “I am so sorry that when
I borrowed your car I failed to return it in good condition. I did not realize how important
this is to you and I see now that my carelessness really upset you. I sincerely apologize and
want you to know that I will to do everything necessary to make things right.”
Confirming the work of McCullough, Worthington, and Rachel (1997), Kelley also
found a correlation between a person’s apology and the extension of empathy toward the
offending partner. This empathic response to a sincere apology sounds something like,
“Now that I understand how badly you feel about what you did, I promise to work at forgiv-
ing you and letting this go.” When an offender makes a direct explanation of the offense,
acknowledges responsibility, requests forgiveness, shows remorse, and apologizes, this
form of communication is likely in 76% of the cases studied to influence the decision to
forgive. The influence of this strategy is so significant that Kelley (1998) concludes that we
need “to conceptualize forgiveness as a dynamic interpersonal process” (267). Reflecting
on this same process, Exline and Baumeister (2000) say that these actions “may intercept a
downward spiral started by the transgression” (136). Research by Morse and Metts (2011)
confirms this earlier work as they describe “the transformative power of apology” (19).
However valuable apologies may be in the interactive process of forgiveness, we live
in an age when apologies have become commonplace, if not trite. We have become so
accustomed to public apologies that we may have lost the ability to discriminate between
different kinds of apologies. Politicians, for example, apologize for marital affairs or fail-
ure to account for taxpayers’ money. In America and Canada, apologies have been offered
for the treatment of Native children held in boarding schools. Ronald Reagan and George
Bush apologized to Japanese Americans for their internment during World War II (Barkan
2000). New Zealanders apologize to indigenous populations for introducing diseases. In
Australia, whites apologize to the aboriginal peoples on “Sorry Day.” Former President Bill
Clinton apologized for “the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.”
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld signaled responsibility for the treatment of Iraqi
prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Professional athletes are routinely compelled to apologize for
abusing their partners or using performance-enhancing drugs. On the other hand, public
apologies when done well may open doors that separate communities, lay the groundwork
for productive associations in the future, and protect individuals and groups against simi-
lar injustices and offenses in the future. The overarching purpose of apologies, delivered
well, can be seen as repairing “relationships between victimizer and victim harmed by past
wrongdoing” (Edwards 2010, 61). Rhetorical analysis of good public apologies indicates
that three elements were present:
∙ Leaders acknowledged wrongdoing by their governments.
∙ They accepted responsibilities for the wrongdoings and expressed remorse that they
occurred.
∙ They made pledges or took actions to ensure that similar wrongs would not be
repeated (Edwards 2010, 64).
In the flood of apologies, especially public apologies, we fear that apologies can create
the illusion that something significant has happened or will soon be set right. Apologies
can be another form of manipulation, put an aggrieved party under extraordinary pressure
to respond graciously, or merely serve as a means of self-protection. People may apologize
as a kind of shortcut to avoid further engagement with an aggrieved party. Concern about
the indiscriminant use of apology leads us to make distinctions between kinds of apologies
and even develop a set of criteria that may help us make more effective apologies. There
are at least three forms of suspect apologies:
∙ Expedient apology. An expedient apology, often arranged in private, merely benefits
the one who offers the apology and provides little or no benefit for the person who was
harmed. A person offering an expedient apology says something like, “To avoid more
controversy over this, let me say I am sorry so we can move on.” Clearly, the goal is to
avoid rather than engage, to escape the consequences of one’s actions rather than learn
more about the actual harm caused by one’s actions. Physicians in Michigan, for exam-
ple, have been encouraged to apologize for medical mistakes. Insurance companies
have discovered that malpractice suits have dropped significantly in situations where
physicians offer a sincere rather than expedient apology (Merriam 2004). Reporting
on similar stories, a Chicago Public Radio program on apology also indicated that
patients and families are extremely astute at discerning whether an apology is genuine
or designed merely to placate (Glass 2004). It seems we humans have a well-developed
ability to distinguish deep apologies from expedient ones.
∙ Compelled apology. A compelled apology may be empty because it is offered without
an adequate understanding of the full effect of one’s actions. In an organization, a peer
may be told by her manager to apologize to her colleague whom she treated with disre-
spect in a public meeting. The mumbled, “I’m sorry I made you look bad at the board
meeting” or “I’m sorry you interpreted my remarks that way,” may do nothing at all to
repair the relationship. This kind of compelled apology is much like kids being told by
a middle school principal to shake hands and make up. Or if a wronged romantic part-
ner says, “If you don’t apologize for sleeping with that X%@! I will never speak to you
again!” Any forthcoming apology is likely to sound like, “I know, I’m sorry, I had too
much to drink and she was just there. It didn’t mean anything.” These and other forced
apologies rarely communicate depth of understanding or a full grasp of the impact of
our actions. Efforts to justify our actions can make the situation even worse.
∙ Delayed or surrogate apology. In a delayed apology, someone far removed from the
wrongdoing accepts responsibility for the harm and offers an apology on behalf of
people no longer present. We issue a delayed apology when we say something like,
“I know a lot of water has gone under the bridge and the people who did this harm
are long gone, but on their behalf I want to say . . .” Delayed or surrogate apologies
may be as comprehensive and necessary as an apology to African Americans for the
harm of slavery or as specific as apologizing for the behavior of a friend in a restau-
rant. The person receiving the apology should be the one who determines its value,
not the one offering the apology.
Concern about inadequate forms of apology has led us to develop a set of criteria for good
apologies. Influenced by a comprehensive study of public and private apology (Lazare
2004), we have developed a set of criteria for good apologies. Apologies require:
1. Acknowledgment of harm without an accompanying justification (“I see that my
actions impacted you in these specific ways . . .”)
2. Acceptance rather than deflection of responsibility (“I now see clearly that I am
largely responsible for what happened. This is my fault.”)
3. Sincere expression of regret or remorse (“I am deeply sorry that my thoughtless
action had this effect on you”)
4. Reparation in some form (“I would like to compensate you in some way for the harm
I caused”)
5. Assurance of safety for the sake of the future of the relationship (“This will not
happen again”)
6. Reaffirmation or clarification of shared values so that both parties will understand
the terms of any future relationship (“In the future you can count on me to uphold my
promise that . . .”)
7. In rare cases an apology may require an explanation if it is requested by the injured
party (“What was in your mind when you . . .?”)
Even with these criteria in mind, a poor apology may compound an injury or conflict.
Therefore, we suggest the following:
When Receiving an Apology, Ask:

1. Who is served by this apology?
2. Can I trust that change in behavior will follow this apology?
3. Does the apology seem sincere, genuine, or authentic? Is it accompanied by accep-

tance of responsibility for the wrongdoing?
4. Was the apology followed by a justification or excuse for the action that harmed me?
5. What is the purpose of this apology? (Repair of the relationship, preparation for
another harmful act, an attempt to disarm or equalize power?)
6. Is the apology accompanied by pressure to forgive the person who caused the harm,
thus transforming a choice into an obligation?
7. Does the apology precede confrontation or follow it? In other words, how well does
the person understand the harm he/she caused? In some situations an apology that
precedes an airing of the transgression may be an attempt to avoid a full reckoning
of the harm that was caused. A preemptive apology can sometimes cause more harm
than good unless the full effects of a person’s actions are understood.
When Offering an Apology, Ask:

1. Do I really understand what hurt or offended the other person?
2. Am I truly aware of what I did and the consequences for the life of the other person?
3. Do I intend to change so that the injury or transgression won’t be repeated?
4. Am I prepared to make some kind of restitution if that is requested?
5. Do I mean what I say?
6. Is the apology for me, the other person, or the relationship?
7. Can I apologize without also adding justification for my actions?
Application 10.6 A Friend Request
One day while scanning your Facebook feed you spot a “friend request” from an old girlfriend.
You feel amazed to see her request. In high school you were her “bad boy” and she was a stellar
student who went on, mutual friends tell you, to become an ophthalmologist with a specialty in
surgery. You are so surprised to see this invitation that you take several days to figure out how to
respond. Now in your 30s you have achieved your own professional accomplishments, so it is not
easy to look back on this time of your life without feeling shame. During your senior year you took
advantage of your connection to Jennie and made several attempts to divert her from her goals,
enjoying this relationship for your own purposes. You were not at your best in those days. You feel
both the desire to connect with her again and some hesitation as you recall some of the things you
did during that phase of your life.
Between high school and now you realize that you have made peace with yourself and have
integrated the pain that led to some of your poorer decisions, so you decide to accept the request.
You follow up with an instant message that only Jennie will see. You make a full and thorough
apology without any attempt to justify or excuse yourself. Guided by your respect for Jennie, you
acknowledge some specific incidents that are painful to recall and express your sincere regret.
Toward the end you write a couple of lines about your marriage and two sons.
(continued)
Application 10.6 A Friend Request
That evening you receive a reply. Jennie is nothing but gracious and kind. While being honest
about the impact of some of your actions she reminds you of the things about yourself that she
found charming, creative, and lovable. You feel tremendous relief that she has responded this way.
Before telling her more about your life you let your wife know that you have made this contact and
that you would like to tell Jennie more about your life. She knows how much this former girlfriend
meant to you, but trusts you to keep things appropriate.
In a role-play with one other student and a “coach” imagine and act out each of these
conversations:
• What does the friend request sound like? Is there more to it than a click?
• How do you express your apology so that you avoid self-justification and too much
explanation?
• What does Jennie’s gracious response sound like?
• How do you approach your wife about this reconnection?
• How does she respond?
• Together, reflect on the value of the time the male character in this story took to think about
the past before he responded.5
5
For a relational dialectical analysis of online forgiveness communication see Pederson (2014).
Final Thoughts on Apology

In some cases it is very clear that an injured party wants us to go beyond a mere verbal
statement. Sometimes a specific action is required before the relationship can be resumed
or trust can be restored. For example, Ian McEwan’s novel Atonement (2001) provides an
extended example and gripping account of the impact of an extremely destructive lie. The
novel takes the reader into the rigorous demands of an interactive repair process, the need
for apology, and the way we sometimes need to go far beyond verbal apology to restitution
and reparation.
Despite appearances and shortcuts, apology is not simple. People often find that
giving and receiving apologies becomes a mutual exchange as each side to a conflict
acknowledges its own contribution to a damaged relationship. One person in a relationship
remembers being belittled in front of peers at a business meeting, while the other person
remembers being passed up for promotion. In an intimate relationship one person remem-
bers the effects of an inappropriate flirtation while the other person remembers feeling
neglected or disregarded. Efforts to improve a relationship through apology must contend,
therefore, with the challenge of untangling these braids, mutual and interwoven contribu-
tions to a problem, conflicting memories, and the different ways that people punctuate
the beginning and conclusion of a grievance. This process is not for the faint-hearted or
insecure; it requires emotional bravery, a willingness to look at one’s own contribution to a
problem, and a deep understanding of how apology can beget forgiveness and forgiveness
can beget apology on the road to reconciliation.
Also, it may be that no apology can be completely purified of some kind of self-interest.
Perhaps it is too much to expect that every apology be cleansed of any effort to secure
a lost advantage. But because apology can be a powerful facilitator of forgiveness, and
because sincere apology and forgiveness can twine around each other in a braid, we want to
uphold high standards for apologies. Our criteria and these suggested questions may lead
us to make better apologies, ones that are worthy of the trust we seek to restore.6 As Lazare
(2004) contends throughout his book:
One of the most profound human interactions is the offering and accepting of apologies. Apolo-
gies have the power to heal humiliations and grudges, remove the desire for vengeance, and
generate forgiveness on the part of the offended parties. For the offender, they can diminish the
fear of retaliation and relieve the guilt and shame that can grip the mind with a persistence and
tenacity that are hard to ignore. The result of the apology process, ideally, is the reconciliation
and restoration of broken relationships (1).
Switching the Point of View:

Receiving Forgiveness and Forgiving Oneself
Thus far in this chapter, the subject of forgiveness generally unfolds from the standpoint
of the person who is in a position to forgive someone else. This discussion would be
incomplete, however, without looking at the process from another angle: What is it like to
receive forgiveness? While it can be extremely difficult to offer forgiveness to someone
who has hurt us, it also can be very hard to receive it after we have done the harm. Accept-
ing forgiveness requires that we shift our attention away from ourselves, away from fear
of retribution or our own feelings of guilt. When we are in a position to receive someone’s
offer of forgiveness, we can no longer focus exclusively on the harm we caused; we need to
focus on the other person’s experience and understanding of it. Suddenly the way we view
and define ourselves becomes more complex. Instead of seeing ourselves only in relation
to something we did in the past, we are faced now with responsibility for new choices.
Receiving forgiveness can be difficult for another reason. In his formative article out-
lining the relationship between forgiveness, receiving forgiveness, and self-forgiveness,
Enright (1996) asserts that a person hoping to receive forgiveness must wait for the gift of
forgiveness to come from the person who has been harmed. It is as if there is an interval
between the action that hurt another person and the forgiveness that releases that person
from resentment and anger. In this interval, a person who has been harmed has the nec-
essary freedom to choose between vengeance and forgiveness. Whatever the benefits of
forgiveness, a person is not obligated to forgive. In this profoundly important interval, the
person who caused harm has an opportunity to reflect rather than deflect awareness about
the actual harm that was caused. Waiting in that interval can be extremely difficult because
it requires that a person stay close to the awareness of the harm he or she caused. Yet, this
interval also may be the birthplace for self-forgiveness.
As with receiving forgiveness, self-forgiveness presents some major challenges. Stu-
dents sometimes report that they may be willing to receive forgiveness from someone they
have harmed but find that they cannot grant themselves this same gift. They say, “I can
6
To see a fine example, watch this lieutenant governor’s apology (Hersher 2016): http://www.npr.org/sections
/thetwo-way/2016/06/15/482207689/watch-utah-lt-governor-apologizes-for-past-attitude-toward-gay-people
imagine forgiving someone else, but myself? Never. I know what I did.” When we refuse to
forgive ourselves, or to accept the offer of forgiveness from someone else, we lock ourselves
in a room. Inside this room it seems impossible to live past the shame associated with some
wrongdoing. Meanwhile, on the outside of the room, people go on about their business.
Some people stay in this locked room for a very long time, sometimes because it seems safe.
In fact the refusal to accept offered forgiveness may be another eddy in which people get
stuck, staying out of the current of life that brings people back together (see Figure 10.1).
Forgiving oneself can be particularly difficult because it first requires that we rec-
oncile two different images of ourselves: the person we think we are and the person who
caused someone harm. The person we think we are (and would like to be) may resist the
truth about the part of ourselves that told the lie, robbed the store, or betrayed a friend. It
may seem that as long as we withhold forgiveness from ourselves, then we cannot pos-
sibly be the person who did this deed. To accept forgiveness, whether from someone else
or from oneself, is a form of admission that, yes, we are both these people—the one who
finds such actions abhorrent and the one who did them. Self-forgiveness requires that we
see these two selves clearly and help them recognize and accept each other, extending
compassion to each until the self becomes less divided. Undertaking this work requires us
to reckon with the complexity of our identity, seeing the “both/and” quality of who we are.
In this chapter we described the internal process of forgiveness, using Enright’s four
phases with their many steps and Layton’s movement from injured innocence and obsession
to transcendence. It is quite possible for people to apply these same steps to themselves.
As in the effort to forgive someone else, we must take steps to uncover what happened and
face that truth courageously. We must work at facing our self-protective defenses and begin
to let them down. We must be willing to extend empathy and compassion to ourselves in
the same way that we might readily offer it to someone else. We must be willing to move
toward a decision to release ourselves from self-punishing tendencies, without denying
accountability. And finally, we must be willing to move toward an outcome phase where
the truth has been integrated and the story of our life becomes more rich and complicated
than we first thought it would be. The end result can be the same sense of freedom as when
we forgive someone else. In this case we can make what we did to someone else less cen-
tral to the story we tell about ourselves. It becomes part of the story, not the whole story.
Application 10.7 Trying to Recover
Imagine that you have just returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. You bear the psychological marks
of having seen friends die in IED explosions, the effect of seeing civilians killed, deaths caused
by “friendly fire,” and the never-ending images of nighttime assaults on ridgetop outposts, not to
mention the daily difficulties of public suspicions, desert heat, windblown dust, street noise, and
children begging for gifts.
Initially, you are so happy to be home. You are reunited with your wife and the child born on
your second tour of duty. At last your surroundings are comfortable and familiar. You still arrange to
see platoon buddies. But you also notice some scary signs of the lasting effects of this deployment.
You spend several hours a day watching violent video games.
(continued)
Application 10.7 Trying to Recover
You are drinking even more than you used to. You occasionally drive through red lights or
race your motorcycle in the nearby mountains as though there is no tomorrow. You are definitely
short-tempered.
One evening after supper, and after you’ve had a few beers, your child is crying inconsolably.
She has begun to grow new teeth. Your wife is in the kitchen and she seems intolerably slow to
give you a hand as you try unsuccessfully to comfort your child. When your wife finally shows up,
wiping her wet hands, you hear yourself say, “Where were you, you lazy bitch?” Instantly, you real-
ize what you have done. You see the effect of your words on your wife’s face. Now your child cries
even harder. You run out of the house and into the night.
Though slowed by the beer, you keep running, running until it occurs to you that you could
spend the night at an old friend’s house. You find the light on the porch, approach, and knock. Your
friend opens the door and motions for you to come in. He can tell you are really upset. When he
asks you what’s going on, you tell him only that you and your wife are having “a little trouble.” He
doesn’t probe further and sets up the couch so you have a place to sleep.
The next morning you wake up suddenly when you hear the phone ringing. Your friend
motions with the phone as if to say, “It’s for you.” When you take the phone you hear your wife in
tears. She is relieved to have found you, upset that you left the house, still angry about what you
said to her. She also wants you to come home. What do you do?
• Do you retreat farther into your sense of shame or go back home?

• What do you need to understand about the impact of your deployment on your wife?
• What do you want her to understand?
• What will it take for you to begin to forgive yourself? What kind of help do you need from her,
from yourself, and maybe from someone with a little distance from the situation?
• What kinds of changes are you willing to set in motion so that this kind of thing does not hap-
pen again? Or, do you feel so far outside your family and so distant from your former self that
you can only imagine moving out?
• What will it take, both inside yourself and in the environment around you, for you to come
back in?
Reconciliation: A Late Stage in the Journey

Trying to be clear about forgiveness, we have kept reconciliation waiting for a long time,
almost like a patient in the office of a physician delayed by an emergency. Our friend has
been patient but now she wants to claim her rightful place. If forgiveness is a process or
decision involving the whole person that releases feelings such as anger, resentment, and
the desire to retaliate, reconciliation is the process of repairing a relationship so that reen-
gagement, trust, and cooperation become possible after a transgression or violation. The
things we say and do to each other create chasms that divide us. When we forgive someone,
or when someone else forgives us, the distance between people may remain in place. It is
not necessarily filled in or spanned by a bridge. It may be good to forgive but not safe to
reconcile. When it is safe, reconciliation is about spanning the chasms between people. It is
about the bridges that people build, one stone or cable at a time, sometimes from one side,
occasionally from both.
What are the cables in this bridge? We are already familiar with some of them. A
genuine and trustworthy apology may be a central cable in the span. Explicit and implicit
expressions, as well as nonverbal gestures, help signal that forgiveness has taken place and
open the way for reconciliation. What are some of the other ways we cross over toward
each other?
Insights from History, Politics, and Literature

In the winter of 1965–66, flooding rivers wiped out key bridges connecting people and
communities throughout the northwest coast of California. Living in the area a few years
later, I heard stories about a resourceful man in the community who offered to shoot an
arrow across the swollen Trinity River. He tied a strand of monofilament to the arrow. This
fishing line allowed people on the other side to attach and haul a heavier line across the
river, and then a rope, and finally a cable strong enough to allow for passage across the
river. The cable prepared the way for rebuilding the bridge.
In his remarkably comprehensive book An Ethic for Enemies, Forgiveness in Politics,
Shriver (1995) develops the same metaphor to help us understand four key aspects of rec-
onciliation. He invites the reader to imagine a cable spanning the chasm of conflict and
alienation that divides individuals, groups, and nations. Based on his knowledge of history,
politics, and world literature, Shriver asserts that this cable is woven of four strands—
truth, forbearance, empathy, and a commitment to remain in a relationship because of our
essential interdependence. Let’s examine each of these strands that together form the cable
spanning the chasm that sometimes opens between individuals.
The Strand of Truth

Nothing obstructs the effort to repair a relationship as much as the experience of hav-
ing your own sense of truth denied. When a friend denies having taken a possession you
know he borrowed, when an employer denies having made an agreement that you were
counting on, or when a person refuses to hear and respect your point of view, movement
toward each other seems impossible. For this reason the ability to acknowledge, honor,
and communicate about what happened and its effects is the first bundle of wire woven
into the cable—the strand of truth. When people openly acknowledge the truth about
what happened, conditions are established that make possible each succeeding step in the
process of reconciliation. Even in situations where reconciliation is out of the question,
as after a rape or murder, a more complete disclosure of the truth contributes to healing.
Victim–offender mediation programs facilitate conversations in which victims of crimes
benefit from face-to-face conversations with those who committed the crimes. Often, vic-
tims seek the truth about what happened as much as remorse on the faces of those now in
prison (Obbie 2010).
Application 10.8 Infidelity in Marriage
For a few weeks, your partner’s behavior has seemed suspicious. Several times she has arrived
home later than she promised. While on a business trip, she called to say that the meetings had
been extended for a couple of days and that her return would be delayed. When you called the
hotel where you thought she was staying, you were informed that “No one by that name is in the
hotel.” You feel shaken by your suspicions. After her return you feel irritation as she works on her
e-mail late into the night, protecting the screen when you approach. The next day you do some-
thing you swore you’d never do. You enter her e-mail records. Torn between a sense of guilt about
compromising her privacy and a desperate need to know, you read the record of her affair. You,
sadly, no longer have any illusions. Armed with this information, you set a time to confront her.
In a role-play with others, enact the first part of this conversation. Remember and apply the
communication approaches we describe and recommend. Speak your truth with as much strength
as you are able without degrading the personhood of your partner. Describe in whatever detail
you deem necessary the harmful effects of her actions, the impact on your days and nights, the
way this affair calls into question everything you have assumed, and how this affair has changed
your life from top to bottom. Also, include in this conversation your needs and expectations for the
future if the relationship is to continue.
Let the role-play include three radically different outcomes. In the first version the betrayer is
defensive, resists taking responsibility, justifies her actions, and may even blame the other for her
actions. What is the effect of this kind of response on the person who discovers the betrayal? In the
second approach, assume that the betrayer takes responsibility and wants to repair the relation-
ship. What is the effect on the relationship of a complete disclosure of the truth? In the third option,
the betrayer might say, “I have met the love of my life. I want to be with him. I will always care for
you, but I no longer feel the kind of love for you that I did. I am sorry. I think our marriage is over.”
How do these approaches change the potential outcome for the relationship? In the third
approach, how can the person who wants to leave take responsibility for her choice?
In the first two situations Janice Spring (1996) says it is necessary for the unfaithful partner to
say, “I promise:
• To be the gatekeeper of my life, and take full responsibility for remaining faithful to you;
• To keep my word that I have said goodbye to the lover; to prove to you with words and
actions that this person is not a threat to us;
• To work out my problems in the context of our lives together;
• To never cheat on you again; to make it unnecessary for you to play the role of detective any
longer; to prove to you that you don’t have to be afraid to trust me again (p. 245).
Alternatively, the betrayer might say:
• “I am leaving this marriage.” I won’t lie to you; this time of our partnership is over,” or “I want
to talk with you. I am unhappy enough to have entered into this affair. What can we do?”
From Spring’s perspective these promises are the minimum steps necessary to begin the
process of restoring broken trust, or making a more or less clean exit. It’s also possible that being
caught in a transgression makes it possible for a person to question their previous commitment.
(continued)
Application 10.8 Infidelity in Marriage
When people make it safe for another person to reveal the truth about an event or transgression
and when the truth is told, recognizing that “truth” can be a complex matter. The first strand in the
cable of reconciliation is laid across the chasm of conflict that divides people. This assumes that
reconciliation is desired by both people.
But why is it so hard to reveal the truth? Stone, Patton, and Heen (2000) remind us
that every conversation has at least three levels—what happened, the feelings associated
with what happened, and questions about the identity of those involved. When someone
is pressing for the truth it can be difficult to reveal because it may feel as if the deepest
foundations of our identities are being shaken. The humility required of us in such situa-
tions may feel excruciating. In these situations we often want to defend and protect our-
selves, which complicates the search for truth. Our own experience in the counseling and
consulting environments, and insights from Hyde and Bineham (2000), shed light on this
problem. Defensiveness is almost inevitable when identity is threatened; yet it is the task
of adulthood to recognize these tendencies, claim them as our own, and work to transcend
them for the sake of truer connections and, ultimately, reconciliation. Hyde and Bineham
give us all the challenge of asking, “Am I willing to consider giving up a part of who I am,
in the interest of what we might become?”
The Strand of Forbearance

The second strand in the cable that crosses the canyon of alienation is what Shriver calls
the strand of forbearance. To forbear means to refrain from revenge or punishment after
someone has hurt us or transgressed against us. Forbearance is essential to the forgiveness
process and to reconciliation because revenge, its opposite, sets in motion an uncontrol-
lable chain of consequences that often eliminates the possibility of reconciliation.
Revenge, especially in the form of violence, seems to settle the score in the short run,
but almost always provides justification for counter-revenge. In one study of interpersonal
romantic relationships, subjects reported a great desire to dominate over the target of their
vengeful behavior. Diverse emotions accompanied retaliation—anger, fearful anxiety, pos-
itive feelings, and remorse (Yoshimura 2007). Painful remorse can serve a positive func-
tion when the person feeling the remorse learns to change future behavior. Revenge may
have had evolutionary value because the threat of it can protect a person or group, deter
mistreatment, or help clarify norms for behavior. But people planning revenge usually have
little foresight. They are incapable of looking beyond the action they are considering to
contemplate the wider consequences of meeting one terrible act with another. Resentment
enacted in revenge, may spell doom for the relationship and even harm oneself. As much
as retribution seems like justice, it can double back in some form and strike the ones who
imposed it. Shakespeare’s Hamlet (1957) may be the finest example of the costs of revenge,
the way one heavy stone tossed into a pool sends waves across the whole body of water.
As we explained in Chapter 4, thoughts of revenge may provide emotional relief or
seem to equalize power, but enacted thoughts can create the predicament of irreversibility.
You can’t “take it back.” As Anne Lamott says in Traveling Mercies (1999, 134), it is like
taking rat poison and hoping that the rat will die, or as Some (2003, 37) says, “Resentment
is like making a cup of tea with poison in it for the other person. Somewhere along the line
you always forget and drink it yourself.” Or, as Gandhi reminded us, if everyone were to
follow the principle of “an eye for an eye,” then the whole world would go blind.
Application 10.9 Shocking Discovery
One day while looking at a Facebook page you discover a post showing a photo of you taken at a
party. The photo shows you in an extremely compromising position. You are virtually certain who
posted this photo and you are overwhelmed with thoughts about the consequences of this image
becoming more widely known. You seriously consider posting some photos of the person who
posted this photo of you. The internal pressure to do this is nearly irresistible, seems only fair, and
feels like justice for the person who has harmed you.
• What do you ultimately choose to do and why?
• What are some of the alternatives to posting a negative image in response to what was done
to you?
• Would you need some form of support to overcome this temptation to take revenge? What
would it look like and where would it come from?
For another example of how social media contributes to conflict and can set up conditions for vengeance
and revenge see Hepola (2016): http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/03/29/472207613
/when-you-become-the-person-you-hate-on-the-internet
Hardly a day goes by that someone does not cut in front of us at the grocery store or
make a bad move in heavy traffic, justify one sexual infidelity with another, or fire off
one text message in response to another. Forbearance is essential because revenge sets in
motion a train of events that cannot be predicted and that guarantees that people will have
an even harder time coming back together in a renewed state of trust.
The Strand of Empathy

Forgiveness and reconciliation are predicated on truth, and depend on forbearance rather
than revenge. Developing and expressing empathy for the offending person form the third
essential strand in the cable stretching across the chasm between people—the strand of
empathy. Empathy—feeling with or for another person—is rooted in the realization that
the one who hurt us is, despite everything, a human being with terrible struggles of his
or her own. We are empathic when we recognize that another person needs our kindness
despite the harm he or she caused. The expression of empathy communicates that we have
some understanding of the other person’s problems, motives, and needs, however con-
fused they may seem, no matter what harm they caused. Empathy recognizes that at some
point we may have done to someone else the very thing we are now trying to transcend.
The memory of our own failing fosters empathy for others. Empathy, like forgiveness as
a whole, requires an exercise of imagination. It asks us to imagine ourselves in the place

of the other person and begin to picture how the other person could have done the act that
now awaits our forgiveness. Empathy recognizes that the bully almost certainly had been
bullied; that the rapist had been raped; that the thief had had something stolen. By means
of imagination empathy reaches into the life history of another human being, even in the
absence of specific information, and begins to picture what life was like for that person
before harm was inflicted on us. If we have never seen what empathy looks like, it is
extremely difficult to extend to other people. But if we have ever seen it modeled, or if we
have received it ourselves, then we know how instrumental it can be in bringing people
back toward each other. Empathy says, “I see what has happened to you, how it affected
you, and even how it led you to hurt other people. Because I see our shared vulnerability, it
is now safe for you to be who you are in my presence.” Empathy adds a third strand in the
cable underlying the bridge spanning the chasm between people. By means of empathy we
begin to cross over toward each other.
Commitment to the Relationship out of Awareness

of Our Interdependence
In some ways this fourth strand in Shriver’s cable that crosses the chasm of conflict is
the most crucial. The economic hardship for families during the most recent economic
recession, or the way climate change recognizes no boundaries, remind us of how our
lives keep being thrown together. Now more than ever, with 7 billion of us on the planet,
often seeing each other through the eye of our electronic devices, we seem to belong to
a single household. What is true on the economic level is often true on the psychologi-
cal or relational level as well. If global economics bind us together, so does our web of
relationships, whether in families or our communities. A sense of how our actions affect
one another places responsibility on us to work things out with one another. People like
Martin Luther King Jr. and Archbishop Desmond Tutu have a particularly firm grasp on
this fourth strand. In King’s case, he knew that the goal was not just a seat on the bus in
Montgomery, Alabama, where his activism began, but the creation of a “beloved com-
munity” among all the races and classes (Lampman 2005). Deeply steeped in the African
tradition of “Ubuntu,” which recognizes that no one person can be a human being without
belonging in some sense to another human being, Tutu (1999) has a clear understanding of
the same point. He knows that “we experience fleetingly that we are made for togetherness,
for friendship, for community, for family, that we are created to live in a delicate network
of interdependence” (265). It is because of this interdependence that we are called upon to
use all our interpersonal skills and ability to communicate with one another for the sake
of some small version of our place in the “beloved community.” This fourth strand ties us
together in recognition of our shared membership and mutual responsibility to work things
out. To summarize all that we have said about the “four strands,” it may be helpful to pic-
ture something like what we show in Figure 10.3.
Tippet (2011), through her project on “Civil Conversations,” has made a significant
contribution to our understanding of the interactive dimension of reconciliation. She
brought a number of thoughtful contributors together to discuss conflict over things such as
abortion, race relations, the environment, and relations between the “straight” and LGBTQ
communities. In conflicts over values, not just personal injury or transgression, it can be
Figure 10.3 The Four-Strand Cable
THE FOUR-STRAND CABLE
very helpful to have what contributor Gushee (2011) calls a “bi-focal vision.” Looking
at a conflict through dual lenses we don’t seek agreement on an issue so much as a much
deeper understanding of our own and the other’s position. As we are unlikely to change
a person’s position, we can at least change our perception of who the other person is and
what experiences helped shaped that person’s perspective. This process is aided when we
ask questions like the following:
You can write about these, or discuss these in a small group.
∙ What values shape your thinking?
∙ Who or what experience has influenced you the most?
∙ Has a particular story had an effect on you and shaped your views?
∙ What is at stake for you in the position you take?
∙ What do you fear most?
∙ What is it about people like me that scares you so much?
∙ What doubts do I have about my own position? Can I risk acknowledging them?
∙ What values of yours can I come to appreciate without losing mine?
In situations where people are at odds over values and positions on important personal
and public issues, questions like these help us see the other person not as an enemy but as
a person whose views have evolved as a result of significant life experiences that are dif-
ferent from our own. By exploring such questions with others we learn to be less afraid
of moving toward another person; we overcome the tendency to see the other person as
flawed or evil or ignorant; we may even develop enthusiasm for difference. By getting bet-
ter at asking these kinds of questions, we increase the likelihood of mending relations not
just after harm has been done but in the everyday clash of values and opinions.
In Beyond Revenge McCullough (2008) describes a process, mainly associated with

groups, that provides some useful terms for what can take place in interpersonal relation-
ships. He tells about two groups of boys at Robbers Cave State Park. In this now famous
experiment, two groups of boys are separated and allowed to develop a strong, well-defined
group identity. After a while the two groups are brought together to compete with one
another. The competition sharpens their differences. Eventually the researchers intervene
and stage some emergencies that impact both groups. As boys from both groups learn to
cooperate with each other, they begin to redefine themselves and each other. McCullough
calls this process “decategorization, recategorization, and intergroup differentiation” (195).
In other words, individuals and groups can learn to break down categories that keep people
separate, revise old categories on the basis of new information, and learn that individuals
are more complex than their group identity. This learning is at the heart of reconciliation.
The Tie That Binds: A Multicultural

Example from Hawaii
I traveled to Maui, Hawaii, to learn more about an ancient Hawaiian practice known as
Ho’oponopono. I spent time in a predominantly indigenous community where I quickly
realized that forgiveness expresses itself differently in different cultures. While in Hawaii I
gathered information, like bits of broken shell scattered on the sand, from many sources—
from a private library and conversations with community elders and clergy. What follows is
a brief summary of a mostly hidden way that Native Hawaiians help family members untan-
gle the nets of grievance, hurt, and resentment that threaten the vitality and well-being of
their families. This account should not be taken as a full explication of the practice.
Ho’oponopono, developed by the first Pacific Islanders to inhabit Hawaii, nearly dis-
appeared in the years after James Cook landed on the islands in 1820 and the Congrega-
tional Church sought to suppress the practice. Yet it persists in the memory of elders. Some
Hawaiian families still practice this ritual in the privacy of their homes. Ho’oponopono
occasionally reemerges less formally in drug treatment, recreation, and juvenile justice
programs. In light of everything else we have said in this chapter on forgiveness and rec-
onciliation, this introduction to a complex method sheds light on important aspects of the
effort to improve relations between individuals who are members of an extended family
network. As it was originally practiced, and for those who continue to use some version
of the process, Ho’oponopono assumes an underlying cosmology, a harmonious triangular
relationship among God (Akua), the land (Aina), and the people (Kanaka). Any distur-
bance to any one part of this triangle affects every aspect of this complex set of rela-
tionships. Living on an isolated archipelago, Hawaiians could not afford disharmony in
relationships. Travel between islands, collaborative efforts to catch fish, the planting of
taro, construction of shelters and ceremonial sites depended on the cooperation of family
members and harmony between them. Ho’oponopono was developed to restore this fragile
harmony after it had been lost.
The most precise account of this practice is preserved in a two-volume book called
Nana I Ke Kumu, or Look to the Source. In this book, the principal author (Pukui 1979)
describes a process, led by a trusted elder, whose goal is to gather family members for
the purpose of discovering what has gone wrong. It aims to restore relationships between
supernatural powers, the land, and its people. Literally, Ho’oponopono means “to make
right.” The process begins with an opening prayer led by the elder (Kahuna or Haku),
establishing the spiritual context for social relations and their repair. The elder then
initiates an investigation into the problems underlying this disharmony. This part of the
practice is like peeling an onion or opening bark around a tree (Mahiki). As the parties
to the conflict tell their stories, one by one, the elder keeps a close eye on everyone and
people who are expressing their feelings. If this uncovering phase becomes too intense or
dissolves into blaming or excusing, he or she may call for a time-out (Ho’omalu) in which
silence is enforced and deep introspection is required. When participants are able to return
to the discussion, sometimes days later, participants continue to open up the hidden layers
of the conflict or trouble (Pilikia). During the course of the discussion, the leader expects
absolute truthfulness and sincerity, examining all parties to the conflict. Likewise, in a res-
olution phase of the process, the leader expects honest confession, the deepest acknowledg-
ment of wrongdoing, apology, and expressions of regret. The injured party is expected to
offer forgiveness (Kala) and release from obligation without further recrimination. At this
point in the process the elder prescribes appropriate forms of restitution so that the wrong-
doer is not burdened by a sense of guilt or discomfort in social situations, and so that the
injured party has no further claim that might again entangle the interdependent relation-
ships. The leader and participants expect that this cycle of acknowledgment, expression
of remorse, and the offer of forgiveness, completes the process. It is said to be finished or
cut off (Oki), so much so that a person who refuses to accept the resolution of the problem
may, in rare cases, be excluded from the community—a most severe punishment in the
island context. Finally, the elder leads a concluding prayer that summarizes the discoveries
and actions of the parties, asking for a blessing on the participants. Occasionally, a modest
cleansing ritual follows Ho’oponopono.
Part of the genius of Ho’oponopono is that it recognizes that grievances are often tied
together and that one layer of resentment underlies another. In a well-known story told by
Mary Pukui, a woman receives a quilt from her mother. In time she was supposed to pass it
on to her daughter. But feeling hurt by what she perceives as her daughter’s apparent inat-
tention, the mother sells the quilt rather than pass it down to the next generation. Feeling
guilty about her action, the mother becomes ill and begins to dream about her daughter.
The illness and the dream precipitate the call for Ho’oponopono. Hawaiians see illness
and a particularly vivid dream as evidence of disharmony in the cosmic triangle, a kind of
trouble that is best addressed through Ho’oponopono. During the course of Ho’oponopono,
the daughter communicates her disappointment and resentment toward the mother who
failed to pass on the quilt. But peeling back a deeper layer, the elder discovers that the
mother is feeling hurt because the daughter has been ignoring her. Peeling to the core, the
uncovering process reveals that the daughter is preoccupied with her new husband and
child. The restorative part of the process requires the mother to create another quilt for
the daughter (with the help of other women in the community) and the daughter to com-
municate more frequently with her mother. Through this example, Mary Pukui illustrates
how family members become entangled in a net of resentments. The Ho’oponopono leader
disentangles the binding cords, freeing all the parties caught in this crow’s nest of misery.
In discussion about this process, other elders likened Ho’oponopono to removing a fish-
hook caught in the flesh of each family member. The person with the grievance must let go
the far end of the line so that the hook can be removed through acknowledgment, confes-
sion, and forgiveness. Linguistically speaking, the language surrounding the practice of
Ho’oponopono employs a host of metaphors derived from traditional Hawaiian culture that
reinforce the spiritual and psychological process of making right a disturbance in once-
harmonious relationships.
From the vantage point of a different culture (the United States) that has wittingly and
unwittingly contributed to the destruction of traditional Hawaiian culture, it may seem to us
that Ho’oponopono depends too much on the skill of a leader at a time when few are trained
to carry out this kind of responsibility. Also, it may overestimate the possibility of achieving
closure through a stylized ritual process. Nevertheless, Ho’oponopono, wherever it is still
practiced or remembered, has much to commend to anyone concerned with forgiveness and
reconciliation. It recognizes and uncovers the layers of grievance that often keep people
apart and the way there are shared contributions to conflict. It sees through the surface glare
of one story to get at another deeper story and recognizes how two stories may be deeply
intertwined. It creates a container in which multiple truths can emerge. It discourages the
most primitive expressions of emotion that can cause additional injuries and interrupt the
restorative process. It demands restitution as a part of restorative justice. It asks participants
to cleanse themselves of the residue of resentment through the expectation that they achieve
closure in relation to one another. And depending on one’s point of view, it recognizes and
awakens spiritual resources that help people restore the lost harmony of the world.
Other cultures have developed their own methods of untangling the strands of conflict
and retribution that give rise to injury upon injury. The Truth and Reconciliation Com-
mission in South Africa, for example, is only one of many efforts following civil conflict
in Africa to reveal painful stories, and to create a setting in which confessions could be
made and forgiveness enacted (McLaughlin 2006). Wherever we live, whatever our cul-
tural identity, these practices have merit as it becomes increasingly clear that we all live on
the same small island.
Conclusion
Sometimes, after a history of conflict with another individual, or worn down by unproductive
interactions and with little sense of hope, we let a relationship wither. It becomes like a plant
we fail to water; it’s not worth the investment. We sometimes need to accept that no amount
of effort, no desire to repair the relationship, to forgive and begin again, or go through the
work and humbling process of being forgiven, will make any difference. Even in a time of
social media some relationships become inaccessible to us. People drift out of reach, leav-
ing us with no reason to pour our energy into the connection. In these situations it is hard or
impossible to take an active approach to the relationship. We simply have to let it go.
While acknowledging that sometimes we simply have to let a relationship fade away, this
chapter assumes that we can sometimes take an active rather than passive approach to a rela-
tionship. In some cases, despite a history of conflict, or because of a compelling need to coop-
erate with another person, we have a sense that a relationship might be reparable or made more
workable with an active approach. In this case learning more about the process of forgiveness,
even if it does not directly involve the other person, might lead toward a clearer understand-
ing of the relationship and possibly even reconciliation and restored trust. This chapter turns
around a central question: What are the requirements and demands of forgiveness and how
might we transcend a history of conflict or transgression and move toward reconciliation?
This chapter takes an active approach to the repair of an interpersonal relationship.
I conclude with a question: Following conflict or a transgression, what should we

expect of forgiveness? However much process models of forgiveness warn us that the path
to forgiveness is not linear, they imply a destination and suggest closure. In truth we are
never really free of our memories, memories of what has been done to us, or memories of
what we have done to others or ourselves. This means the practice of forgiveness, at best,
is a gateway, a turnstile, a mountain pass beyond which the trail continues. Whatever met-
aphor you use, once we are through the intersection of forgiveness some things are differ-
ent. We may feel a little more empathy toward the transgressor or even for ourselves. We
may leave behind some of the obsessive self-focus that naturally accompanies a wound
to the heart. Memories can fade with distance. We can feel a little freer than when we
first picked up a load of resentment. Nevertheless, the integration of our experience is
not arrival. We will always have something to learn from the past and work to do in the
future, some shame to overcome, some anger to release so we do not contribute further to
a world of wounds.
As I have mentioned, we authors live in a place where rivers cut their way through
mountains on the way to the sea. Some of our rivers have been assaulted by a history of
mining and misuse, the effects of dams and accumulating pollution. In 2008, one of these
dams was breached. As dramatic as this event was, those of us who live near the conflu-
ence of the Blackfoot and Clark Fork Rivers remember that a great deal of work took place
before heavy equipment pulled away the last obstruction and released the river: Permits
and agreements needed to be secured; poisonous sediments had to be removed; a diver-
sion channel and temporary coffer dam had to be built. Once the river flowed free it took
with it a certain amount of leftover arsenic and copper, toxic substances now distributed
downriver in eddies, on inside turns, beaches and reservoirs. Some of the effects are still
with us, but they are dispersed rather than concentrated. In much the same way, forgiveness
involves a great deal of work, the excavation of toxic memories and the eventual release of
the animosity we hold against others and ourselves. Some of this work takes place silently
and deep within us. Some of it requires cooperation, patience, and the assistance of other
people who facilitate the process through their apologies, their willingness to listen, and
the courage it takes to acknowledge one’s own contribution to destructive conflict. Never-
theless, the river of our relations can eventually run free, assume its natural rhythms, and
support the lives we all hope to lead.
Summary
In this chapter, informed by stories and a growing forgiveness, whether taken privately or in coopera-
body of research, we define forgiveness, discuss tion with the person who caused harm, we must take
misconceptions about it, and describe how the into account differences in power between parties to
process of forgiving may take a path with many a conflict or transgression. For this reason we stand
steps or be the result of a decision. Forgiveness by the view that forgiveness is more an option, a
does not require forgetting, but depends on a full choice not necessarily an obligation. People may
acknowledgement of the truth. On the journey of get stuck in the process and may need patience and
resting places while on the journey to forgiveness. “Resentment no longer holds me hostage.” “Like a
Forgiveness is both intrapersonal and interpersonal scarred tree, I’ve begun to heal.” “The journey is not
in nature. We may take the indirect route of private over, but I have started out on the road.”
reflection and nonverbal gestures toward an offend- Using examples from the lives of our student
ing party or we may risk direct communication and counseling clients, and insights from film, fic-
about the offense, the harm it caused, and the need tion, and international relations, we have illustrated
for restitution and amends. We set a high standard some of the challenges inherent in this process. For-
for apology, recognizing that good apologies often giveness, and reconciliation its close cousin in the
foster and speed the process of repairing relational next room, are the by-product of a complex inter-
damage. Reconciliation is not always an appropri- action of several factors. Forgiveness that restores
ate goal or outcome. Relying on Shriver, we see us to ourselves and reconciliation that restores us
great value in telling and hearing the truth, resist- to one another are the result of time, but not time
ing the appeal of revenge, developing empathy that alone. The human desire to transcend injury, clari-
softens the hardened heart, and working toward fying conversation, the courage to place a violation,
the awareness that our ties of mutual dependence betrayal, deception, or some other wound in the
invite us to keep working at restoring our connec- larger context of additional experience, and perhaps
tions. Informed by insights and practices in other the mysterious effect of what some call “grace,”
cultures, we have a growing appreciation of the role all contribute to a better outcome. When we for-
played by other members of the community who give someone else or ourselves, or when we are
can help us remember, grieve, and let go, and who forgiven by those we have harmed, we affirm the
can help us untangle the nets of our own complicity world is much larger than the injury that dominates
in destructive interactions. Other people can some- our thoughts and feelings. An invisible door opens
times help us accomplish what we cannot achieve and we step out onto a stage where it is possible to
by ourselves. associate with one another in ways less impacted
Listening carefully to the stories people tell, and dictated by old memories. In this light we sub-
we have realized that the process leading to forgive- jugate the memory of past harm to the hope of a
ness is not always scripted or linear; sometimes it is new future. In the face of conflict or injury, we see
simply mysterious. At the end of the journey people our mutual vulnerability, our inevitable interdepen-
say things like, “I found that the stones I wanted dence, and the need for compassion so all of us can
to throw simply slipped out of my fingers.” “The transcend the injuries and bitter conflicts associ-
gate to a future I could not have imagined simply ated with the past and move more freely as creators
swung open when I let go of what they did to me.” of a new story.
Key Terms
forgiveness 317 self-forgiveness 331 the strand of forbearance 351

imbalance of power 325 eddies 335 the strand of empathy 352
secondary wound 327 gestures 338 Ho’oponopono 355
decision or a process 329 kinds of apologies 341
decision to forgive 329 receive forgiveness 346
three-step model reconciliation 348
of forgiveness 330 the strand of truth 349
Review Questions
1. Discuss some definitions of forgiveness. What 8. What makes apologies ineffective or

are the key components of forgiveness? inappropriate?
2. What are the differences between forgiveness 9. What makes a genuine apology?
and reconciliation? 10. What are the characteristics of good public
3. What is the problem with the phrase “forgive apologies?
and forget”? 11. What are the purposes of well-constructed
4. Compare and contrast the ideas of “forgiveness public apologies?
as decision” and “forgiveness as process,” giving 12. What makes self-forgiveness so difficult?
your own opinions based on the ideas presented. 13. Explain Shriver’s four strands of
5. Explain the “eddies” in which a person may be reconciliation.
caught. 14. What are some of the guidelines for a reconcil-
6. In what way is forgiveness both intrapersonal ing conversation?
and interpersonal? How might these aspects be 15. Describe cultural practices of the process of
woven together? forgiveness.
7. How do gestures function to lay the ground-
work for further change?
References
Abe, J. A., and C. E. Izard. 1999. A longitudinal study of emo- Aslund, C., B. Starrin, J. Leppert, and K. W. Nilsson. 2009.
tion expression and personality relations in early develop- Social status and shaming experiences related to adolescent
ment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77, no. 3: overt aggression at school. Aggressive Behavior 35: 1–13.
566–577. Association for Conflict Resolution. 2004. Conflict resolution
Acitelli, L. K., E. Douvan, and J. Veroff. 1993. Perceptions education: Fostering peace building in our schools. Fall.
of conflict in the first year of marriage: How important are Association for Conflict Resolution. 2005. Spirituality and the
similarity and understanding? Journal of Social and Personal heart of conflict resolution. Special issue: Fall.
Relationships 10: 5–20.
Association for Conflict Resolution. 2007a. Recommended stan-
Ackerman, B. P., J. A. Abe, and C. E. Izard. 1998. Differential dards for school-based peer mediation programs.
emotions theory and emotional development: Mindful of mod-
ularity. In What develops in emotional development? edited Association for Conflict Resolution. 2007b. Paradigms of prac-
by M. F. Mascolo and S. Griffin. New York: Plenum Press: tice: A mosaic of approaches. Washington, DC. Winter issue.
86–106. Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR). 2010. Technology:
Al-Hamdan, Z., R. Shukri, and D. Anthony. 2011. Conflict Resolving conflicts using creative new approaches. 9: 1–21.
management styles used by nurse managers in the Sultanate of Augsburger, D. W. 1992. Conflict mediation across cultures:
Oman. Journal of Clinical Nursing 20: 571–580. Pathways and patterns. Louisville, KY: Westminster John
Alberts, J., and G. Driscoll. 1992. Containment versus escalation: Knox Press.
The trajectory of couples’ conversational complaints. Western Aula, P., and K. Siira. 2010. Organizational communication and
Journal of Communication 56: 394–412. conflict management systems: a social complexity approach.
Alberts, J. K., P. Lutgen-Sandvik, and S. J. Tracy. 2005b. Bul- Nordicom Review 31, no. 1: 125–141.
lying in the workplace: A case of escalated incivility. To be Aureli, F., and D. Smucny. 2000. The role of emotion in conflict
presented at the International Communication Association and conflict resolution. In F. Aureli and Frans B. M. de Waal.
Convention, New York, May. Natural conflict resolution, 199–224. Berkeley: University of
Aliakbari, M., and M. Amiri. 2016. Personality, face concern, California Press.
and interpersonal conflict resolution styles: A case of Iranian Averill, J. R. 1968. Grief: Its nature and significance. Psychologi-
college students. Personality and Individual Differences 97: cal Bulletin 70: 721–748.
266–271. Avivi, Y. E., J-p. Laureceau, and C. S. Carver. 2009. Linking
Almeida, D. M. 2005. Resilience and vulnerability to daily relationship quality to perceived mutuality of relationship goals
stressors assessed via diary methods. Current Directions in and perceived goal progress. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychological Science 14, no. 2: 64–68. Psychology 28, no. 2: 137–164.
Almeida, D. M., and M. C. Horn. 2004. Is daily life more Avtgis, T. A., and A. S. Rancer eds. 2010. Arguments, aggression
stressful during middle adulthood? In How healthy are we? A and conflict: New directions in theory and research. New York:
national study of well-being at midlife, O. G. Brim, C. D. Ryff, Routledge.
and R. C. Kessler. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Bach, G. R., and H. Goldberg. 1974. Creative aggression: The
foundation series on mental health and development. Studies art of assertive living. New York: Avon Books.
on successful midlife development. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press: 425–451. Bach, G. R., and P. Wyden. 1968. The intimate enemy: How to
fight fair in love and marriage. New York: Avon Books.
Alper, B. S., and L. W. Nichols. 1981. Beyond the courtroom.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Bachman, G. F., and L. K. Guerrero. 2006. Forgiveness, apology,
and communicative responses to hurtful events. Communica-
Amato, P. R., and S. R. Rogers. 1999. Do attitudes toward divorce tion Reports 19: 45–56.
affect marital quality? Journal of Family Issues 20: 69–87.
Baldwin, Jr., D. C., and S. R. Daugherty. 2008. Interprofes-
Anonymous. 1993. Getting over. The New Yorker 67 (April 5): 24. sional conflict and medical errors: Results of a national multi-
Archer, J. 2000. Sex differences in aggression between hetero- specialty survey of hospital residents in the U.S. Journal of
sexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin Interprofessional Care 2, no. 6: 573–586.
126: 651–680. Bang, H., S. L. Fuglesang, M. R. Ovesen, and D. E. Eilertsen.
Arseneault, L., L. Bowes, and S. Shakoor. 2010. Bully victimiza- 2010. Effectiveness in top management group meetings: The
tion in youths and mental health problems: “Much ado about role of goal clarity, focused communication, and learning
nothing?” Psychological Medicine 40: 717–729. behavior. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 51: 253–261.
References 363
Barkan, E. 2000. The guilt of nations: Restitution and negotiat- Belenky, M., B. Clinchy, N. Goldberger, and J. Tarule. 1986.
ing historical injustices. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and
Press. mind. New York: Basic Books.
Barnett, R. C., N. L. Marshall, and J. H. Pleck. 1992. Men’s Bell, C., and F. Song. 2005. Emotions in the conflict process:
multiple roles and their relationship to men’s psychological dis- An application of the cognitive appraisal model of emotions
tress. Journal of Marriage and the Family 54: 358–368. to conflict management. The International Journal of Conflict
Barnlund, D. C. 1989. Communicative styles of Japanese and Management 16, no. 1: 30–54.
Americans: Images and realities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bell, M. L., and D. Forde. 1999. A factorial survey of interper-
Baron, R. A. 1984. Reducing organizational conflict: An incom- sonal conflict resolution. Journal of Social Psychology 139:
patible response approach. Journal of Applied Psychology 69: 369–378.
272–279. Bendersky, C. 2003. Organization dispute resolution systems: A
Bartholomew, K., and R. J. Cobb. 2011. Conceptualizing rela- complementarities model. Academy of Management 28, no. 4:
tionship violence as a dyadic process. Ed. L. M. Horowitz and 643–646.
S. Strack. Handbook of interpersonal psychology: Theory, ———. 1992. Introduction, special issue: Interpersonal argu-
research, assessment, and therapeutic interventions. New York: mentation. Argumentation and Advocacy 29: 39–40.
John Wiley and Sons, 233–247. Berger, C. R. 1980. Power and the family. In Persuasion: New
Baskin, T., and R. Enright. 2004. Intervention Studies on For- directions in theory and research, edited by M. E. Roloff and
giveness: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Counseling & Develop- G. R. Miller. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
ment 82 (Winter): 79–90. Bergmann, T. J., and R. J. Volkema. 1994. Issues, behavioral
Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: responses, and consequences in interpersonal conflicts. Journal
Ballantine Books. of Organizational Behavior 15: 467–471.
———. 1980. Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Berry, K. 2016. Bullied: Tales of torment, identity, and youth.
Bantam Books. New York, NY: Routledge.
Baumeister, R. F., L. Smart, and J. M. Boden. 1996. Relation of Bevan, J. L. 2010. Serial argument goals and conflict strategies:
threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side A comparison between romantic partners and family members.
of high self-esteem. Psychological Review 103: 5–33. Communication Reports 23: 52–64.
Baumeister, R. R., A. Stillwell, and S. R. Wotman. 1990. Victim Billikopf, G. 2009. Party-directed mediation. Modesto, CA: Uni-
and perpetrator accounts of interpersonal conflict: Autobio- versity of California Press.
graphical narratives about anger. Journal of Personality and Bjorkqvist, K., K. Osterman, and K. M. J. Lagerspetz. 1994.
Social Psychology 59: 994–1005. Sex differences in covert aggression among adults. Aggressive
Baxter, L. A. 2011. Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspective. Behavior 20: 27–33.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. Bjorkqvist, K., K. Osterman, and M. Hjelt-Back. 1994. Aggres-
Baxter, L. A., and D. O. Braithwaite. 2006. Family rituals. In sion among university employees. Aggressive Behavior 20:
L. H. Turner and R. West (eds.), The family communication 173–184.
sourcebook, 259–280. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G.,
Baxter, L. A., D. O. Braithwaite, and J. Nicholson. 1999. Turn- Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., Stevens, M. R. (2011). The
ing points in the development of blended family relationships. national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS):
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 16: 291–313. 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury,
Bazerman, M. H., J. Curhan, and C. Moore. 2000. The death Prevention, and Control.
and rebirth of the social psychology of negotiations. In Black- Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York:
well handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes, John Wiley & Sons.
edited by G. Fletcher and M. Clark. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell Blechman, F., J. Crocker, J. Docherty, and S. Garon. 1998.
Publishing. Finding meaning in a complex environmental policy dialog:
Bechtoldt, M. N., C. K. W. DeDreu, B. A. Nijstad, and D. Zapf. Research into worldviews in the northern forest lands council
2010. Self-concept clarity and the management of social con- dialogue, 1990–1994. Fairfax, VA: Institute for Conflict Analy-
flict. Journal of Personality 78, issue 2: 539–574. sis and Resolution.
Beck, C. J. A., J. M. Menkie, K. O. Brewster, and A. J. Figueredo. Bodtker, A. M., and J. Katz Jameson. 2001. Emotion in conflict
2009. Validation of a measure of intimate partner abuse with formation and its transformation Application to organizational
couples participating in divorce mediation. Journal of Divorce conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Man-
and Remarriage 50: 295–308. agement 12, no. 3: 259–275.
364 References
Borisoff, D., and D. A. Victor. 1989. Conflict management: A bring? Conflict Resolution Quarterly 31, no. 4: 357–386. The
communication skills approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Bully Project. n.d. Retrieved from www.thebullyproject.com
Hall. Brutz, J., and C. M. Allen. 1986. Religious commitment, peace
Braiker, H. B., and H. H. Kelley. 1979. Conflict in the develop- activism, and marital violence in Quaker families. Journal of
ment of close relationships. In Social exchange in developing Marriage and the Family 48: 491–502.
relationships, edited by R. L. Burgess and T. L. Huston. New Brygger, M. P., and M. Edleson. 1984. Gender differences in
York: Academic Press. reporting of battering incidents. Paper presented at the Second
Braman, R. 1998. Teaching peace to adults: Using critical think- National Conference for Family Violence Researchers, Univer-
ing to improve conflict resolution. Adult Learning (Winter): sity of New Hampshire, Durham.
30–33. Buechler, S. 2008. Making a difference in patients’ lives.
Brandimonte, M. A., D. Ferrante, C. Bianco, and M. G. Villani. Routledge: New York.
2010. Memory for pro-social intentions: When competing Burman, B., and G. Margolin. 1992. Analysis of the association
motives collide. Cognition 114: 436–441. between marital relationships and health problems: An interac-
Branislava, B., M. D. C. Tomislav, G. Vera, and S. Dragana. tional perspective. Psychological Bulletin 112, no. 39: 25.
2011. Conflict styles observed in doctors and nurses in health Burrell, N. A., and D. D. Cahn. 1994. Mediating peer conflicts in
care organization. Medicinski Pregled 64: 262–266. education contexts: The maintenance of school relationships.
Breggin, P. B. 1992. Beyond conflict: From self-help and psycho- In Conflict in personal relationships, edited by D. D. Cahn,
therapy to peacemaking. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 79–94. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brett, J. M., Z. I. Barsness, and S. B. Goldberg. 1996. The Bush, R. A. B. 1984. Dispute resolution alternatives and the
effectiveness of mediation: An independent analysis of cases goals of civil justice: Jurisdictional principles for process
handled by four major service providers. Negotiation Journal choice. Wisconsin Law Review 893.
12: 259–269.
Bush, R. A. B., and J. P. Folger. 1994. The promise of mediation:
Brinkert, R. 2010. A literature review of conflict communication Responding to conflict through empowerment and recognition.
interventions in nursing. Journal of Nursing Management 18: San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
145–156.
Buttell, F. P., and M. M. Carney. 2006. Women who perpetrate
Brinkert, R. 2016. State of knowledge: Conflict coaching theory, relationship violence: Moving beyond political correctness.
application, and research. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 33, New York: Routledge.
no. 4: 383–401.
Butovskaya, M. L. (2008). Reconciliation, dominance and cor-
Brockriede, W. 1972. Arguers as lovers. Philosophy & Rhetoric tisol levels in children and adolescents (7–15-year-old boys).
5, no. 1: 1–11. Behaviour 145, no. 11: 1557–1576.
Broome, B. J., and I. L. Cromer. 1991. Strategic planning for Buttny, R. 2000. Discursive positioning as accounting and dia-
tribal economic development: A culturally appropriate model logic practice. Narrative Inquiry 10, no. 1: 147–151.
for consensus building. International Journal of Conflict Man-
Cahill, M. 1982. Couples’ perceptions of power. Paper for Inter-
agement 2: 217–233.
personal Communication 595: Advanced Conflict Manage-
Brown, B. R. 1977. Face-saving and face-restoration in nego- ment, University of Montana.
tiation. In Negotiations, edited by D. Druckman, 275–299.
Cahn, D., and R. Abigail. 2007. Managing conflict through com-
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
munication. 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson.
Brown, L. 2011. It isn’t just about you: a dialogic approach to
Camara, K. A., and G. Resnick. 1989. Styles of conflict resolu-
forgiveness. Conflict and Communication Online 10, no. 1.
tion and cooperation between divorced parents: Effects on child
Retrieved from http://www.cco.regener-online.de/2011_1/pdf
behavior and adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry
/brown.pdf
59, no. 4: 560–575.
Brown, L. M., and C. Gilligan. 1992. Meeting at the crossroads:
Women’s psychology and girls’ development. Cambridge, MA: Cameron, K. S., and D. A. Whetten. 1995. Developing manage-
Harvard University Press. ment skills. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Browning, J., and O. Dotton. 1986. Assessment of wife assault Campbell, J. 1988. The power of myth. New York: Doubleday.
with the conflict tactics scale: Using couple data to quantify Canary, D. J., W. R. Cupach, and S. J. Messman. 1995. Relation-
the differential reporting effect. Journal of Marriage and the ship conflict. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Family 48: 375–379. Canevello, A., and J. Crocker. 2010. Creating good relationships:
Brubaker, D., C. Noble, R. Fincher, S. K. Park, and S. Press. Responsiveness, relationship quality, and interpersonal goals.
2014. Conflict resolution in the workplace: What will the future Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99: 78–106.
References 365
Carbonneau, T. E. 2009. Arbitration in a nutshell 2nd ed. Boston: Coleman, D. H., and M. A. Straus. 1986. Marital power, conflict,
West Publishing. and violence in a nationally representative sample of American
Carnevale, P. J. D., and E. J. Lawler. 1986. Time pressure and the couples. Violence and Victims 1: 141–157.
development of integrative agreements in bilateral negotiations. Coleman, M. A., M. A. Fine, L. G. Ganong, K. M. Downs, and
Journal of Conflict Resolution 30: 636–659. N. Pauk. 2001. When you’re not the Brady Bunch: Identifying
Carr, K., & Wang, T. R. (2012). ”Forgiveness isn’t a simple pro- perceived conflicts and resolution strategies in stepfamilies.
cess: It’s a vast undertaking”: Negotiating and communicating Personal Relationships 8: 57–73.
forgiveness in nonvoluntary family relationships. Journal of Coleman, P. T. 2014a. Power and conflict. In The handbook of
Family Communication, 12(1), 40-56. conflict resolution: Theory and practice (3rd ed.) edited by P.
Carroll et al. 2013 T. Coleman, M. Deutsch, and E. C. Marcus. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass: 137–167.
Carroll, S. J., E. J. Hill, J. B. Yorgason, J. H. Larson, and
J. G. Sandberg. 2013. Couple communication as a media- Coleman, P. T. 2014b. Intractable conflict. In The handbook of
tor between work–family conflict and marital satisfaction. conflict resolution: Theory and practice (3rd ed.) edited by
Contemporary Family Therapy 35, no. 3: 530–545. P. T. Coleman, M. Deutsch, and E. C. Marcus. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass: 708–744.
Carson, J. W., K. M. Carson, K. M. Gil, and D. H. Baucom.
Mindfulness-based relationship enhancement. Behavior Ther- Coleman, P. T., K. Kugler, A. Mitchinson, C. Chung, and
apy. 2004;35:471–494. N. Musallam. 2010. The view from above and below: The
effects of power and interdependence asymmetries on conflict
Carstensen, L. L., J. M. Gottman, and R. W. Levenson. 2004.
dynamics and outcomes in organizations. Negotiation and Con-
Emotional behavior in long-term marriage. In Close relation-
flict Management Research vol 3, issue 4: 283–311.
ships: Key readings, edited by H. T. Reis and C. E. Rusbult,
457–470. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis. Communication Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Chapman, S. G. 2012. The five keys to mindful communication:
Using deep listening and mindful speech to strengthen relation- Comstock, J. 1994. Parent–adolescent conflict: A developmental
ships, heal conflicts, and accomplish your goals. New York, approach. Western Journal of Communication 58: 263–282.
NY: Penguin Random House. Comstock, J., and K. Strzyzewski. 1990. Interpersonal interac-
Charles, S. T., and L. L. Carstensen. 2008. Unpleasant situations tion on television: Family conflict and jealousy on prime time.
elicit different emotional responses in younger and older adults. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 34: 263–282.
Psychology and Aging 23, no. 3: 495–504. Cose, E. 2004. Bone to pick. New York: Atria Books.
Chaudhry, A. A., M. Sajjad, and I. Khan. 2011. Employees con- Cosner, S. 2009. Building Organizational Capacity through Trust.
flict management strategies and demography: A case of Pakistan. Educational Administration Quarterly 45, no. 2: 248–291.
African Journal of Business Management 5: 3549–3555. Coy, P. 2005/Mar 28. Why logic often takes a backseat. Business
Christakis, N. A., and J. H. Fowler. 2009. Connected: The sur- week, 94–96.
prising power of our social networks and how they shape our Cozolino, L. 2010. The neuroscience of psychotherapy: Healing
lives. New York: Little, Brown and Company. the social brain. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.
Cloke, K., and Joan Goldsmith. 2000. Resolving conflicts at Crohan, S. E. 1992. Marital happiness and spousal consensus
work: A complete guide for everyone on the job. San Francisco: on beliefs about marital conflict: A longitudinal investigation.
Jossey-Bass. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 9: 89–102.
Cloke, Kenneth. 2001. Mediating dangerously: The frontiers of Croucher, S. 2011. Muslim and Christian conflict styles in
conflict resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Western Europe. International Journal of Conflict Management
Cloven, D. H., and M. E. Roloff. 1991. Sense-making activities 22, no. 1: 60–74.
and interpersonal conflict: Communicative cures for the mulling Croucher, S. M., A. Bruno, P. McGrath, C. Adams, C. McGahan,
blues. Western Journal of Speech Communication 55: 134–158. A. Suits, and A. Huckins. 2012. Conflict styles and high–low
Coan, J. 2010. Adult attachment and the brain. Journal of Social context cultures: A cross-cultural extension. Communication
and Personal Relationships 27, no. 2: 210–217. Research Reports 29, no. 1: 64–73.
Coates, T. (2015). Between the world and me. New York, NY: Croucher, S. M., M. V. Hicks, D. Oommen, and A. DeMaris.
Spiegal & Grau, Penguin Random House. 2011. Examination of conflict style preferences in India. Inter-
Cohen, D., J. Vandello, S. Puente, and A. Rantilla. 1999. “When national Journal of Conflict Management 22: 10–34.
you call me that, smile!” How norms for politeness, interaction Cuber, J. F., and P. B. Haroff. 1955. The significant Americans:
styles, and aggression work together in Southern culture. Social A study of sexual behavior among the affluent. New York:
Psychology Quarterly 62, no. 3: 257–275. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
366 References
Cupach, W. R. 1980. Interpersonal conflict: Relational strategies Donohue, W. A. In press. The identity trap: Managing para-
and intimacy. Paper presented to the Speech Communication dox in intractable conflict. Journal of Language and Social
Association Convention, New York. Psychology.
———. 1982. Communication satisfaction and interpersonal Donohue, W. A., M. Allen, and N. Burrell. 1988. Mediator com-
solidarity as outcomes of conflict message strategy use. Paper municative competence. Communication Monographs 55:
presented at the International Communication Association 104–119.
Convention, May. Donohue, W. A., L. Drake, and A. J. Roberto. 1994. Mediator
Curseu, Petru L. 2011. Intra-group and teamwork quality: The issue intervention strategies: A replication and some conclu-
moderating role of leadership styles. Administrative Sciences 1, sions. Mediation Quarterly 11: 261–274.
no. 1: 3–13. Donohue, W. A., and R. Kolt. 1992. Managing interpersonal
Dallos, R., and Vetere, A. 2011. Systems theory, family attach- conflict. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
ments, and processes of triangulation: Does the concept of Doucet, O., J. Poitras, and D. Chenevert. 2009. The impacts of
triangulation offer a useful bridge? Journal of Family Therapy. leadership on workplace conflicts. International Journal of
New York: Wiley Online Library. Conflict Management 20: 340–354.
Darwin, C. 1965. The expression of the emotions in man and Douglas, R. (2016). On being raped. Boston, MA: Beacon House.
animals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work
Dunbar, N. E. 2015. A review of theoretical approaches to inter-
published 1872.)
personal power. The Review of Communication 15, no. 1: 1–18.
Davis, K., D. P. Randall, A. Ambrose, and M. Orand. 2015. ‘I
Dunn, C. W., and C. M. Tucker. 1993. Black children’s adaptive
was bullied too’: Stories of bullying and coping in an online
functioning and maladaptive behavior associated with quality
community. Information, Communication & Society 18, no. 4:
of family support. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and
357–375.
Development 21: 79–87.
Deal, J. E., and K. S. Wampler. 1986. Dating violence: The pri-
Early, C., and A. Early. 2011. Neuroscience of emotion: Attach-
macy of previous experience. Journal of Social and Personal
ment theory and the practice of conflict resolution. Association
Relationships 3, no. 4: 457–471.
of Conflict Resolution (Summer): 9–13.
Deci, E. L. 1992. On the nature and functions of motivation theo-
Edelgard, M., and W. Colsman. 2002. Conflict resolution style as
ries. Psychological Science 3: 167–171.
an indicator of adolescents’ substance use and other problem
DeSilvilya, H. S., & Yagil, D. 2005. The role of emotions in con- behaviors. Addictive Behaviors 26, no. 4: 633–648.
flict management: The case of work teams. The International
Edwards, H. T., and J. J. White. 1977. Problems, readings, and
Journal of Conflict Management 16, no. 1: 55–69.
materials on the lawyer as a negotiator. St. Paul, MN: West
Deutsch, M. 1949. A theory of competition and cooperation. Publishing.
Human Relations 2: 129–151.
Edwards, J. 2010. Apologizing for the past for a better future:
Deutsch, M. 2000. Cooperation and competition. In The hand- Collective apologies in the United States, Australia, and
book of conflict resolution: Theory and practice, edited Canada. Southern Communication Journal 75, no. 1: 57–75.
by M. Deutsch and P. T. Coleman, 21–40. San Francisco:
Ehrensaft, M. K., Moffitt, T. E., and Caspi, A. (2006). Is domes-
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
tic violence followed by an increased risk of psychiatric disor-
Deutsch, M., and P. Coleman, eds. 2000. The handbook of con- ders among women but not among men? A longitudinal cohort
flict resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. study. American Journal of Psychiatry 163: 885–892.
DiBlasio, F. 2000. Decision-based forgiveness treatment in cases Einarsen, S. 1999. The nature and causes of bullying at work.
of marital infidelity. Psychotherapy 37, no. 2: 149–158. Einarsen, S., and E. G. Mikkelsen. 2003. Individual effects of
DiPaola, B., M. Roloff, and K. Peters. 2010. College students’ exposure to bullying at work. In Bullying and emotional abuse
expectation of conflict intensity: A self-fulfilling prophecy. in the workplace: International perspectives in research
Communication Quarterly 58, no. 1: 59–76. and practice, edited by S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, and
Dobash, R. E., and R. P. Dobash. 1979. Violence against wives. C. L. Cooper, 127–144. London: Taylor & Francis Publishers.
New York: Free Press. Einolf, C. J. 2010. Daily spiritual experiences and prosocial
Donohue, W. A. 1991. Communication, marital dispute, behavior. Social Indicators Research. http://www.springerlink
and divorce mediation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .com/content/06251844k3410144/
Associates. Ekman, P., and R. Davidson. 1994. The nature of emotion: Fun-
Donohue, W. A. 2012. The identity trap: The language of damental questions. New York: Oxford University Press.
genocide. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31, Eleff, L. 2001. Paper for mediation class. Arizona State
no. 1: 13–29. University.
References 367
Ellis, D. G. 2006. Transforming conflict: Communication and M. Deutsch, and E. C. Marcus. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass:
ethnopolitical conflict. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield 877–897.
Publishers. Fitzpatrick, S., and K. Bussey. 2014. The role of perceived
Emerson, R. M. 1962. Power-dependence relations. American friendship self-efficacy as a protective factor against the nega-
Sociological Review 27: 31–41. tive effects of social victimization. Social Development 23, no.
Enright, R. 1996. Counseling within the forgiveness triad: On 1: 41–60.
forgiving, receiving forgiveness, and self-forgiveness. Counsel- Fletcher, J. K. 1999. Disappearing acts: Gender, power, and
ing and Values 40, no. 2: 107–127. relational practice at work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Enright, R. 2001. Forgiveness is a choice. Washington, DC: Folger, J. P., M. S. Poole, and R. K. Stutman. 1993. Working
American Psychological Association. through conflict: A communication perspective. Glenview, IL:
Enright, R. D., and the Human Development Study Group. 1991. Scott, Foresman & Company.
The moral development of forgiveness. In W. Kurtines and Folger, J. P., M. S. Poole, and R. K. Stutman. 2004. Working
Gewirtz (eds.), Moral behavior and development 1: 123–152. through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and orga-
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. nizations. 5th ed. Glenview, IL: Poole, Allyn and Bacon.
Enright, R., E. Gassin, and C. Wu. 1992. Forgiveness: A devel- ———. 2008. Working through conflict: Strategies for relation-
opmental view. Journal of Moral Education 21: 101. ships, groups, and organizations. 6th ed. Glenview, IL: Poole,
Evans, P. 1992. The verbally abusive relationship. Holbrook, Allyn and Bacon.
MA: Bob Adams. Folger, J. P., S. M. Poole, and R. K. Stutman. 2012. Working
Evans, P. 2010. The verbally abusive relationship (updated 3rd through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and orga-
ed). Avon, MA: Adams Media. nizations (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Exline, J., and R. Baumeister. 2000. Expressing forgiveness and Follett, M. P. 1940. Dynamic administration: The collected
repentance. Forgiveness, theory, research, and practice, edited papers of M. P. Follett. Edited by H. C. Metcalf and L. Urwick.
by M. McCullough, K. Pargament, and C. Thoresen. New New York: Harper & Brothers.
York: Guilford Press. Forte, P. S. 1997. The high cost of conflict. Nursing Economics
Feeley, T. H., S. Moon, R. S. Kozey, and A. S. Slowe. 2010. An 15, no. 3: 119–124.
erosion model of employee turnover based on network central- Fowler, J., C. Pearson, and S.J. Beck. 2010. The influences of
ity. Journal of Applied Communication Research 38: 167–188. family communication patterns on adult children’s perceptions
Felson, R. B. 1996. Big people hit little people: Sex differences of romantic behaviors. Journal of the Communication, Speech,
in physical power and interpersonal violence. Criminology 34, and Theatre Association of North Dakota 23: 1–11.
no. 3: 433–452. Fredrickson, B. L. 2003. The value of positive emotions: The
Files, L. A. 1981. The human services management task: A emerging science of positive psychology is coming to understand
time allocation study. Public Administration Review 41, no. 6: why it’s good to feel good. American Scientist 91: 330–335.
686–692. Fredrickson, B. L., and T. Joiner. 2002. Positive emotions trigger
Fisher, R. 1971. Fractionating conflict. In Conflict resolution: upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychological
Contributions of the behavioral sciences, edited by C. Smith, Science, vol. 13, #2, 172–175.
157–169. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Frijda, N. 1986. The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
Fisher, R. 1985. Beyond yes. Negotiation Journal 1: 67–70. sity Press.
Fisher, R., and D. Shapiro. 2005. Beyond reason: Using emotions Frijda, N. H., A. S. R. Manstead, and S. Bem. (eds). 2000. Stud-
as you negotiate. New York: Penguin Group. ies in emotion and social interaction. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Fisher, R., and S. Brown. 1988. Getting together: Building a rela-
tionship that gets to yes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Funk, J., R. Elliott, H. Bechtoldt, T. Pasold, and A. Tsavoussis.
2003. The attitudes toward violence scale: Child version.
Fisher, R., and W. Ury. 1981. Getting to yes: Negotiating agree- Journal of Interpersonal Violence 18, no. 2: 186–197. 2nd ed.
ment without giving in. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Company.
Fisher, R., W. Ury, and B. Patton. 1991. Getting to yes. 2nd ed. Galvin, K. M., and B. J. Brommel. 1986. Family communica-
New York: Penguin Books. tion: Cohesion and change. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and
Fisher-Yoshida, 2014 Company.
Fisher-Yoshida, B. 2014. Creating constructive communication Garber, R. J. 1991. Long-term effects of divorce on the self-
through dialogue. In The hand book of conflict resolution: esteem of young adults. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage
Theory and practice (3rd ed.) edited by P. T. Coleman, 17: 131–137.
368 References
Gayle, B. M. 1991. Sex equity in workplace conflict management. Gottman, J., C. Notarius, J. Gonso, and H. Markman. 1976. A
Journal of Applied Communication Research 19: 152–169. couple’s guide to communication. Champaign, IL: Research
Gayle-Hackett, B. 1989b. Gender differences in conflict manage- Press.
ment strategy selection: A preliminary organizational investi- Gottman, J. M. 1982. Emotional responsiveness in marital con-
gation. Paper presented to the Western Speech Communication versations. Journal of Communication 32, no. 8: 108–120.
Association Convention, Spokane, WA, February 17. ———. 1999. The marriage clinic: A scientifically based mari-
Gelles, R. 1981. The myth of the battered husband. In Marriage tal therapy. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.
and family, edited by R. Walsh and O. Poes. New York: Gottman, J. M. 1994a. An agenda for marital therapy. In The
Guilford Press. heart of the matter: Perspectives on emotion in marital therapy
———. 1987. The violent home. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage edited by S. M. Johnson and L. S. Greenberg. Philadelphia, PA:
Publications. Brunner/Mazel: 256–293.
Gelles, R. J., and C. P. Cornell. 1990. Intimate violence in fami- Gottman, J. M. 1994b. What predicts divorce? The relationship
lies. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Gerzon, M. 1992. A choice of heroes: The changing faces of
American manhood. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company; Gottman, J. M., and L. J. Krokoff. 1989. Marital interaction and
reprint edition. satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology 57: 47–52.
Gibb, J. 1961. Defensive communication. Journal of Communi-
cation 11, no. 3: 141–148. Gottman, J. M., and J. S. Gottman. 2008. Gottman Method Cou-
ples Therapy. In Clinical Handbook of Couple Therapy, 4th
Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
ed., ed. Alan S. Gurman, Guilford Press, New York.
University Press: 18–63.
Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding common ground for multi-
Gire, J. T., and D. W. Carment. 1993. Dealing with disputes: The
party problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
influence of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Social Psy-
chology 133, no. 1: 81–96. Gray-Little, B. 1982. Marital quality and power processes among
black couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family 44, no. 3:
Glass, I. 2004. Apology. This American life. Chicago Public
633–646.
Radio. November 5.
Greenberger, D., and C. A. Padesky. 1995. Mind over mood:
Glinton, S. (2016). Forgetting isn’t healing: Lessons from Elie
Change how you feel by changing the way you think. New
Wiesel. Retrieved from: http://scholar.aci.info/view/14d0b34b0
York: Guilford Press.
1b00100005/155ea667ccf00014c23
Greene, K., and M. Bogo. 2002. The different faces of intimate
Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face
violence: Implications for assessment and treatment. Journal of
behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Marital and Family Therapy 28, no. 4: 455–467.
Goldberg, A. A., M. S. Cavanaugh, and C. E. Larson. 1983.
Greenwood, M. 2008. How to mediate like a pro: 42 rules for
The meaning of “power.” Journal of Applied Communication
mediating disputes. Kindle edition, iUniverse.
Research 11, no. 2: 89–108.
Grych, J. H., and F. D. Fincham. 1990. Marital conflict and chil-
Goldberg, R. M. 2009. How our worldviews shape our practice.
dren’s adjustment: A cognitive conceptual framework. Psycho-
Conflict Resolution Quarterly 6, no. 4.
logical Bulletin 108: 267–290.
Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam
Gudykunst, W. B., and Y. Yun Kim. 2002. Communicating with
Books.
strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. New
———. 1998. Working with emotional intelligence. New York: York: McGraw-Hill.
Bantam Books.
Gudykunst, W., and S. Ting-Toomey. 1988. Culture and interper-
Goodpaster, G. 1992. Lawsuits as negotiations. Negotiation Journal sonal communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
8, no. 3: 221–239. Guerin, P. J., Jr., L. F. Fay, S. L. Burden, and J. G. Kautto. 1987.
Goodrich, T. J. 1991. Women, power, and family therapy: What’s The evaluation and treatment of marital conflict: A four-stage
wrong with this picture? In Women and power: Perspectives for approach. New York: Basic Books.
family therapy, edited by T. J. Goodrich, 3–35. New York: Guerrero L. K., and A. G. La Valley. 2006. Conflict, emotion,
W. W. Norton & Company. and communication. In The Sage handbook of conflict commu-
Gottman, J. 1993. A theory of marital dissolution and stability. nication: integrating theory, research, and practice, edited by
Journal of Family Psychology 7: 57–75. J. G. Oetzel and S. Ting-Toomey, 69–96. Thousand Oaks, CA:
———. 2014. What predicts divorce? The relationship Sage Publications.
between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, Guinote, A., and T. K. Vescio. 2010. The social psychology of
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. power. New York: Guilford Press.
References 369
Gulliver, P. H. 1979. Disputes and negotiations: A cross-cultural Hayes, J. G., and S. Metts. 2008. Managing the expression of
perspective. New York: Academic Press. emotions. Western Journal of Communication 72, no. 4
Gultekin, S., P. B. Karapinar, S. M. Camgoz, and A. Ergeneli. (October–November): 374–396.
2011. Do stages of moral development matter in the prefer- Hazy, J., J. Goldstein, and B. Lichtenstein. 2007. Complex sys-
ence of conflict handling with peers? International Journal of tems leadership theory. Boston: ISCE Publishing.
Humanities and Social Science 1: 223–230. Hedeen, T. 2004. The evolution and evaluation of community
Gushee, D. 2011. Sacred conversations. Retrieved from http:// mediation: Limited research suggests unlimited progress. Con-
being.public radio.org/programs/2011/ccp-kinsling/essay.— flict Resolution Quarterly 22, no. 1–2: 101–133.
gushee.shtml/ Heer, D. M. 1963. The measurement and bases of family power:
Günsoy, C., S. E. Cross, A. K. Uskul, G. Adams, and B. An overview. Marriage and Family Living 25: 133–139.
Gercek-Swing. 2015. Avoid or fight back? Cultural differences Heim, P., and S. K. Galant. 1993. Smashing the glass ceiling:
in responses to conflict and the role of collectivism, honor, and Tactics for women who want to win in business. New York:
enemy perception. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 46, Simon and Schuster.
no. 8: 1081–1102.
Hein, G., and T. Singer. 2008. I feel how you feel but not always:
Haferkamp, C. J. 1991–1992. Orientations to conflict: Gender, The empathic brain and its modulation. Current Opinion in
attributions, resolution strategies, and self-monitoring. Current Neurobiology 18: 153–158.
Psychology: Research and Reviews 10: 227–240.
Heitler, S. 1990. From conflict to resolution: Skills and strate-
Hairong, F., and S. R. Wilson. 2012. Cultural Variations in
gies for individual, couple, and family therapy. New York:
the Reasons People Provide Avoidance Support. Journal of
W. W. Norton & Company.
International and Intercultural Communication Vol 5, Issue 1,
64–87. Hepola, S. (2016). When you become the person you hate on the
internet. Retrieved from http://scholar.aci.info/view/14d0ae71d
Haley, J. 1959. An interactional description of schizophrenia.
79000f0005/153c46bca7f00014c07
Psychiatry 22: 321–332.
Herk, N. A., R. C. Thompson, K. W. Thomas, and R. H. Kilmann.
Halford, W. K., C. Farrugia, A. Lizzio, and K. Wilson. 2009. Rela-
2011. International technical brief for Thomas Kilmann
tionship aggression, violence, and self-regulation in Australian
conflict mode instrument. http://www.cpp.com.
newlywed couples. Australian Journal of Psychology 62: 82–92.
Hersher, R. (2016). WATCH: Utah lt. governor apologizes for
Hamilton, M., and M. Tafoya. 2012. Toward a collective frame-
past attitude toward gay people. Retrieved from http://www.npr
work on verbal aggression: Hierarchical and antagonistic pro-
.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/15/482207689/watch-utah-lt
cesses, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, vol. 31,
-governor-apologizes-for-past-attitude-toward-gay-people
112–13.
Heydenberk, R. A., W. R. Heydenberk, and V. Tzenova. 2006.
Hample, D. 2005. Arguing: Exchanging reasons face to face.
Conflict resolution and bully prevention: Skills for school suc-
Mahwaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
cess. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 24, no. 1 (Fall).
Hample, D., and B. Krueger. 2011. Serial Arguments in Class-
Hill, C. E., M. Roffman, J. Stahl, S. Friedman, A. Hummel, and
rooms. Communication Studies. Vol 62, Issue 5, 597–617.
W. Chrisanthy. 2008. Helping skills training for undergradu-
Harper, G. 2004. The joy of conflict. Gabriola Island, Canada: ates: Outcomes and prediction of outcomes. Journal of Coun-
New Society Publishers. seling Psychology 55: 359–370.
Harris, L. M., K. J. Gergen, and J. W. Lannamann. 1986. Aggres- Hocker, J. 2011. Turning Toward Tincup: A Story of a Home
sion rituals. Communication Monographs 53: 252–265. Death, Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 17 Sage Publications. Thou-
Harrison, T. R. (2007). My professor is so unfair: Student atti- sand Oaks, CA.
tudes and experiences of conflict with faculty. Conflict Resolu- Hoffman, L. 1981. Foundations of family therapy: A conceptual
tion Quarterly 24, no. 3: 349–368. framework for systems change. New York: Basic Books.
Hart, R. P., and D. M. Burks. 1972. Rhetorical sensitivity and Hogh, A., M. Engstrom-Henriksson, and H. Burr. 2005. A 5-year
social interaction. Speech Monographs 39, no. 2: 75–91. follow-up study of aggression at work and psychological
Hartje, J. H. 1984. Lawyer’s skills in negotiations: Justice health. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 12,
in unseen hands. Missouri Journal of Dispute Resolution: no. 4: 256–265.
119–192. Holloway, S., and G. Brager. 1985. Implicit negotiations and
Harvey, J. 2004. Trauma and recovery strategies across the organizational practice. Administration in Social Work 9:
lifespan of long-term married couples. Phoenix: Arizona State 15–24.
University West Press. Holmes, M. E. 1992. Phase structures in negotiation. In
Hathaway, W. 1995. A new way of viewing dispute resolution Communication and negotiation, edited by L. L. Putnam and
training. Mediation Quarterly 13: 37–45. M. E. Roloff, 83–105. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
370 References
Holmgren, M. 1993. Forgiveness and the intrinsic value of per- Jameson, J., A. Bodtker, D. Porch, and W. Jordan. 2009. Conflict
sons. American Philosophical Quarterly 30: 4. resolution quarterly, 27, 2, 167–192.
Hong, Alain P. C. I., and Per J. van der Wijst. 2013. Women in Jandt, F. E., ed. 1973. Conflict resolution through communica-
negotiation: Effects of gender and power on negotiation behav- tion. New York: Harper & Row.
ior. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 6, no. 4: Jaycox, L. H., and R. L. Repetti. 1993. Conflict in families and
273–284. the psychological adjustment of preadolescent children. Jour-
Houghton, J. D., C. L. Pearce, C. C. Manz, S. Courtright, and nal of Family Psychology 7: 344–355.
G. L. Stewart. 2015. Sharing is caring: Toward a model of Jennings, A. M., C. J. Salts, and T. A. Smith Jr. 1991. Atti-
proactive caring through shared leadership. Human Resource tudes toward marriage: Effects of parental conflict, family
Management Review 25, no. 3: 313–327. structure, and gender. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage
Huang, B., H. R. White, R. Kosterman, R. F. Catalano, and 17: 67–79.
J. D. Hawkins. 2001. Developmental associations between Johnson, A. J. 2002. Beliefs about arguing: A comparison of
alcohol and interpersonal aggression during adolescence. public issue and personal issue arguments. Communication
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38, no. 1: 64. Reports 15, no. 2: 99–112.
Huang, J-C. 2010. Unbundling task and relationship conflict:
Johnson, B. 1977. Communication: The process of organizing.
The moderating role of team goal orientation and conflict
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
management. International Journal of Conflict Management
21: 334–355. Johnson, C., and J. Keedy. 2010. Managing conflict at work:
Understanding and resolving conflict for productive working
Hyde, B., and Bineham, J. 2000. From debate to dialogue: toward
relationships. London, UK: Kogan Page.
a pedagogy of nonpolarized discourse. Southern Communica-
tion Journal 65. Johnson, D. W., and R. T. Johnson. 1996. Reducing school vio-
lence through conflict resolution training. NAASP Bulletin 80,
Infante, D. A., K. C. Hartley, M. M. Martin, M. A. Higgins,
no. 579: 11–19.
S. D. Bruning, and G. Hur. 1992. Initiating and reciprocating
verbal aggression: Effects on credibility and credited valid Johnson, S. M. 2002. Emotionally focused couple therapy with
arguments. Communication Studies 43: 182–190. trauma survivors: Strengthening attachment bonds. New York:
Guilford Press.
Infante, D. A., A. S. Rancer, and C. J. Wigley. 2011. In defense
of the argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness scales. Jokinen, J., K. Forslund, E. Ahnemark, J. P. Gustavsson,
Communication Quarterly 59, no. 2: 145–154. P. Nordström, and M. Asberg. 2010. Karolinska interpersonal
violence scale predicts suicide in suicide attempters. The Jour-
Infante, D. A., A. S. Rancer, and C. J. Wigley. 2011. In defense
nal of Clinical Psychiatry 71, no. 8: 1025–1032.
of the argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness scales.
Communication Quarterly 59: 145–154. Jones, D. C. 1992. Parental divorce, family conflict, and friend-
ship networks. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 9:
Infante, D. A., B. L. Riddle, C. L. Horvath, and S. A. Tumlin.
219–235.
1992. Verbal aggressiveness: Messages and reasons. Communi-
cation Quarterly 40: 116–126. Jones, T. 2000. Emotional communication in conflict: Essence
Irving, H. H., and P. E. Bohm. 1978. A social science approach and impact. In W. Eadie and P. Nelson (eds.), The language of
to family dispute resolution. Canadian Journal of Family Law conflict and resolution. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
1, no. 1: 39–56. Jones, T. 2005. The emperor’s new clothes: What we don’t know
Isaacs, L. K. A. 2009. Teacher’s perceptions of the effectiveness will hurt us. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 23: 129–139.
of the Olweus bullying prevention program in hindering bully- Jones, T. S. 1988. Phase structures in agreement and no-agreement
ing behaviors. Dissertation, Widener University: 126. mediation. Communication Research 15: 470–495.
Isen, A. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social Jones, T. S. 2001. Evaluating your conflict resolution education
behavior. In Advances in experimental social psychology, program. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education.
edited by L. Berkowitz, 203–253. San Diego: Academic Press. Jones, T. S., and Ross Brinkert. 2008. Conflict coaching: Con-
Ishii, K. 2010. Conflict management in online relationships. flict management strategies and skills for the individual.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 13: 365–370. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ivy, D. K., and P. Backlund. 2003. Genderspeak: Personal effec- Jones, T. S., and R. O. Compton (eds.). 2003. Kids working it
tiveness in gender communication. New York: McGraw-Hill. out: Stories and strategies for making peace in our schools.
Izard, C. E., and B. P. Ackerman. 2000. Motivational, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/John Wiley.
organizational, and regulatory functions of discreet emotions. Jones, T. S., and D. Kmitta (eds.). 2000. Does it work? The case
In Handbook of emotions. 2nd ed., edited by M. Lewis and for conflict resolution education in our nation’s schools.
J. M. Haviland-Jones. New York: Guilford Press. Washington, DC: Conflict Resolution Education Network.
References 371
Jordan, J. S. 1990. Courage in connection: Conflict, compas- conversations. Journal of Applied Communication Research
sion, creativity. In Work in progress. Stone Center Working 41, no. 2: 160–180.
Paper Series. Wellesley, MA: Stone Center, Wellesley College. Kellermann, K., and B. C. Shea. 1996. Threats, suggestions,
Jordan, J. V. 2008a. Learning at the margin: New models of hints, and promises: Gaining compliance efficiently and
strength. Women & Therapy 31, no. 2-4:, 189–208. politely. Communication Quarterly 44: 145–165.
Jordan, J. V. 2008b. Valuing vulnerability: New definitions of Kellett, P. M. 2007. Conflict dialogue: Working with layers of
courage. Women & Therapy 31, no. 2-4: 209–233. meaning for productive relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Jordon, J., S. Kaplan, J. Miller, I. Stiver, and J. Surrey. 1991.
Women’s growth in connection, New York: Guilford Press. Kelley, D. 1998. The communication of forgiveness. Communi-
cation Studies 49: 255–271.
Joshi, A. 2008. Conflict resolution between friends during
middle childhood. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 169, Kelly, J. 2004. Family mediation research: Is there empirical support
no. 2: 133–148. for the field? Conflict Resolution Quarterly 22, no. 1–2: 3–35.
Jouriles, E. N., V. Mueller, D. Rosenfield, R. McDonald, and Keltner, J. W. 1987. Mediation: Toward a civilized system of
M. C. Dodson. 2012. Teens’ experiences of harsh parenting and dispute resolution. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication
exposure to severe intimate partner violence: Adding insult to Association.
injury in predicting teen dating violence. Psychology of Vio- Kenkel, W. W. 1957. Influence differentiation in family decision
lence 2, no. 2: 125– 138. making. Sociology and Social Research 43: 18–25.
Jouriles, E. N., W. J. Bourg, and A. M. Farris. 1991. Marital Kerwin, W., A. Doherty, and A. Harman. 2011. It’s not conflict,
adjustment and child conduct problems: A comparison of the it’s differences of opinion: An in-depth examination of conflict
correlation across subsamples. Journal of Consulting and on non-profit boards. Small Group Research 42, no. 5: 562–594.
Clinical Psychology 59: 354–357. Khaddouma et al 2015
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Khaddouma, A., K. C. Gordon, L. J. Fish, A. Bilheimer, A.
Straus and Giroux. Gonzalez, and K. I. Pollak. 2015. Relationships among spousal
Kam, C. C.-S., and M. H. Bond. 2008. Role of emotions and communication, self-efficacy, and motivation among expect-
behavioral responses in mediating the impact of face loss on ant Latino fathers who smoke. Health Psychology 34, no. 10:
relationship deterioration: Are Chinese more face-sensitive than 1038–1042.
Americans? Asian Journal of Social Psychology 11: 175–184. Khakimova, L., Y. B. Zhang, and J. A. Hall. 2012. Conflict man-
Kantek, F., and N. Gezer. 2005. Conflict in schools: Student agement styles: The role of ethnic identity and self-construal
nurses’ conflict management styles. Nurse Education Today 29: among young male Arabs and Americans. Journal of Intercul-
100–107. tural Communication Research 41, no. 1: 37–57.
Karimi et al. 2013 Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., T. Newton, J. T. Cacioppo, R. G. CacCallum,
R. Glaser, and W. B. Malarkey. 1996. Marital conflict and
Keene, F. 1995. The politics of forgiveness. On the Issues (Fall):
endocrine function: Are men really more physiologically
107–109.
affected than women? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
Karimi, L., S. G. Leggat, L. Donohue, G. Farrell, and chology 64, no. 2: 324(9).
G. E. Couper. 2014. Emotional rescue: The role of emotional
Kilmann, R., and K. W. Thomas. 1975. Interpersonal conflict-
intelligence and emotional labour on well-being and job-stress
handling behavior as reflections of Jungian personality dimen-
among community nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing 70,
sions. Psychological Reports 37: 971–980.
no. 1: 176–186.
Kim, Nicoters, and McNulty 2015
Kaschak, E. 1992. Engendered lives: A new psychology of wom-
en’s experience. New York: Basic Books. Kim, J., and C. Emery. 2003. Marital power, conflict, norm
consensus, and marital violence in a nationally representative
Kassing, J. W., and D. A. Infante. 1999. Aggressive communica-
sample of Korean couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence
tion in the coach-athlete relationship. Communication Research
18, no. 2: 197–220.
Reports 16, no. 2: 110–120.
Kim, T-Y., C. Wang, M. Kondo, and T-H. Kim. 2007. Conflict
Keashly, L., and J. H. Neuman (eds.). 2008. Final report:
management styles: the differences among the Chinese,
Workplace behavior (bullying) project survey. Mankato, MN:
Japanese, and Koreans. International Journal of Conflict
Minnesota State University.
Management 18: 23–41.
Keating et al. 2013 Kim, W., A. M. Nicotera, and J. McNulty. 2015. Nurses’ per-
Keating, D. M., J. C. Russell, J. Cornacchione, and S. W. Smith. ceptions of conflict as constructive or destructive. Journal of
2013. Family communication patterns and difficult family Advanced Nursing 71, no. 9: 2073–2083.
372 References
King, M. L., Jr. 1989. Strength to love. Augsburg Fortress Press. Kritek, P. B. 1994. Negotiating at an uneven table: A practical
Kipnis, D. 1976. The powerholders. Chicago: University of approach to working with difference and diversity.
Chicago Press. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Koerner, A. F., and M. A. Fitzpatrick. 2002. You never leave Krueger, L. M. 2011. The implementation of an anti-bullying
your family in a fight: The impact of family of origin on program to reduce bullying behaviors on elementary school
conflict-behavior in romantic relationships. Communication buses. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The
Studies 53, no. 3: 234–252. Sciences and Engineering 72, no. 3-B: 1784.
Kohlberg, L. 1976. Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive Kuhn, T., and M. S. Poole. 2000. Do conflict management styles
development approach in Licrona. In Moral development and affect group decision making? Evidence from a longitudinal
behavior: Theory, research and social issues. New York: Holt study. Human Communication Research 26, no. 4: 558–591.
Reinhart. Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by.
Kohn, A. 1992. No contest: The case against competition. New Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
York: Houghton Mifflin. Lammers, J. D., A. Stapel, and A. D. Galinsky. 2010. Power
Kolb, D. 2000. More than just a footnote: Constructing a theo- increases hypocrisy: Moralizing in reasoning, immorality in
retical framework for teaching about gender in negotiation. behavior. Psychological Science 21: 737–744.
Negotiation Journal (October), 16(4): 347–356. Lamott, A. 1999. Traveling mercies. New York: Anchor Books.
Kolb, D., and L. Putnam. 1992. The multiple faces of conflict Lampman, J. 2005. The civil rights movement must water its
in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior 13: spiritual roots. The Christian Science Monitor 14 (January 4).
311–324.
Lange, J. I. 1993. The logic of competing information cam-
———. 1997. Through the looking glass: Negotiation theory paigns: Conflict over old growth and the spotted owl. Commu-
refracted through the lens of gender. In Frontiers in dispute nication Monographs 60: 239–257.
resolution in industrial relations and human resources, edited
by S. Gleason, 231–257. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State Larkin, K. T., Frazer, N. L., and Wheat, A. 2011. Responses to
University Press. interpersonal conflict among young adult men and women:
Influence of cohesion and flexibility of family of origin.
Kolb, D., and L. Putnam. 2000. Rethinking negotiation: Feminist Personal Relationships 18: 657–667.
views of communication and exchange. In Rethinking Organi-
zational Communication from Feminist Perspectives, Larkin, K. T., N. L. Frazer, and A. L. Wheat. 2011. Responses to
P. Buzannel (Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. interpersonal conflict among young adults: Influence of family
of origin. Personal Relationships 18, no. 4: 657–667.
Komarraju, M., S. J. Dollinger, and J. L. Lovell. 2008.
Individualism-collectivism in horizontal and vertical directions Lasswell, H. D. 2009. Power and Personality. New York, NY:
as predictors of conflict management styles. International W. W. Norton.
Journal of Conflict Management 19: 2–35. Lau, R. S., and A. T. Cobb. 2010. Understanding the connections
Korabik, K., G. Baril, and C. Watson. 1993. Sex Roles. Springer between relationship conflict and performance: The intervening
Publications. roles of trust and exchange. Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior 31: 898–917.
Kornfield, J. 2001. After the ecstasy, the laundry. New York:
Bantam Press. Laursen, B., and Hafen, C. A. 2010. Future directions in the
study of close relationships: Conflict is bad (Except when it’s
Kotter, J. P. 1985. Power and influence: Beyond formal authority. not). Social Development 19: 858–872.
New York: Free Press.
Lax, D., and J. Sebenius. 1986. The manager as negotiator. New
Kowalski, K. M. 1998. Peer mediation success stories: In nearly York: Free Press.
10,000 schools nationwide, peer mediation helps teens solve
problems without violence. Current Health 25, no. 2: 13–16. Layton, M. 1999. Apology not accepted. Utne Reader (March–
April): 45–50.
Krakauer, J. (2015). Missoula: Rape and the justice system in
a college town (First ed.). New York, NY: Knopf Doubleday Lazare, A. 2004. On apology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Publishing Group. Lazarus, R. S. 1991. Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY:
Kressel, K. 2014. The mediation of conflict: Context, cognition, Oxford University Press. The Learning Center at Red Willow.
and practice. In The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory n.d. Retrieved from http://www.redwillowlearning.org/
and practice (3rd ed.) edited by P. T. Coleman, M. Deutsch, LeBaron, M. 2014. The alchemy of change: Cultural fluency in
and E. C. Marcus. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass: 817–848. conflict resolution. In The hand book of conflict resolution: The-
Kressel, K., N. Jaffee, B. Tuchman, C. Watson, and M. Deutsch. ory and practice (3rd ed.) edited by P. T. Coleman, M. Deutsch,
1980. A typology of divorcing couples: Implications for and E. C. Marcus. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass: 581–603.
mediation and the divorce process. Family Process 19, no. 2: Lederer, W. J., and D. D. Jackson. 1968. Mirages of marriage.
101–116. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
References 373
Leem, S. and Gillis, T. (2011). Animated shorts on the lessons Lutgen-Sandvik, P., S. J. Tracy, and J. K. Alberts. 2007. Burned
of forgiveness and repentance for the high holy days. Retrieved by bullying in the American workplace: Prevalence, percep-
from: http://www.onbeing.org/blog/animated-shorts-lessons- tion, degree, and impact. Journal of Management Studies
forgiveness-and-repentance-high-holy-days/2530 44: 837–862.
Lenton, R. L. 1995a. Power versus feminist theories of wife Lutgen-Sandvik, P., S. Tracy, and J. Alberts. 2005. Burned by
abuse. Canadian Journal of Criminology 37: 305–330. bullying in the American workplace: A first time study of U.S.
———. 1995b. Feminist versus interpersonal power theories of prevalence and delineation of bullying “degree.” Presented at
wife abuse revisited. Canadian Journal of Criminology 37, the Western States Communication Convention, February, San
no. 4: 567–574. Francisco, CA.
Lerner, G. H. 1989. Notes on overlap management in conversa- MacDonald, G., M. P. Zanna, and J. G. Holmes. 2000. An experi-
tion: The case of delayed completion. Western Journal of mental test of the role of alcohol in relationship conflict. Jour-
Speech Communication 53, no. 2: 167–177. nal of Experimental Social Psychology 36, no. 2: 182–194.
Leung, K., F. P. Brew, Z-X. Zhang, and Y. Zang. 2011. Harmony Mace, D. R. 1987. Close companions: The marriage enrichment
and conflict: A cross-cultural investigation in China and handbook. 1982; reprint. New York: Continuum.
Australia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 42: 795–816. Mack, R. M., and R. C. Snyder. 1973. The analysis of social
Lewicki, R. J., and A. Hiam. 2006. Mastering Business Negotia- conflict—toward an overview and synthesis. In Conflict resolu-
tion. New York: John Wiley & Sons. tion through communication, edited by F. E. Jandt. New York:
Harper & Row.
Lewicki, R. J., and E. C. Tomlinson. 2014. Trust, trust development,
and trust repair. In The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory Magee, J. C. 2009. Seeing power in action: Theories of delibera-
and practice (3rd ed.) edited by P. T. Coleman, M. Deutsch, and tion, implementation, and action in inferences of power. Jour-
E. C. Marcus. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass: 104–136. nal of Experimental Social Psychology 45: 1–14.
Lewicki, R. J., and J. A. Litterer. 1985. Negotiation. Homewood, Maiese, M. 2006. Engaging the emotions in conflict intervention.
IL: Irwin. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 24, no. 2: 187–195.
Leymann, H. 1990. Mobbing and psychological terror at work- Malhotra, D., and M. N. Bazerman. 2007. Negotiation genius.
places. Violence and Victims 5: 119–126. How to overcome obstacles and achieve brilliant results at the
bargaining table and beyond. New York: Bantam Press.
Lindbergh, A. 1955. Gift from the sea. New York: Pantheon.
Lord, R. 1991. Do I have to forgive? The Christian Century Malis, R. S., and M. E. Roloff. 2006. Demand/withdraw patterns
108: 902–903. in serial arguments: Implications for well-being. Human Com-
munication Research 32: 198–216.
Lindner, E. G. 2014. Emotion and conflict: Why it is important
to understand how emotions affect conflict and how conflict Marano, H. E. 1996. A saga of spouse abuse. Psychology Today
affects emotions. In The handbook of conflict resolution: The- (May/June): 56–77.
ory and practice (3rd ed.) edited by P. T. Coleman, M. Deutsch, Margolin, G., and K. A. Vickerman. 2007. Post-traumatic stress
and E. C. Marcus. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass: 283–309. in children and adolescents exposed to family violence. I.
Lipsky, D. B., and R. L. Seeber. 2006. Managing organizational Overview and issues. Professional Psychology: Research and
conflicts. In The Sage handbook of conflict communication Practice. Vol. 38, 613–619.
edited by J. G. Oetzel and S. Ting-Toomey. Thousand Oaks, Marks, M. A. 1981. The suing of America. New York: Seaview
CA: Sage Publications: 359–390. Books.
Livingston B. 2014. Bargaining behind the scenes: Spousal Marlow, E., A. Nyamathi, W. Grajeda, A. Weber and Younger.
negotiation, labor, and work-family burnout. Journal of 2021. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 18 no. 1: 8–9: Sage.
Management 40, no. 4: 949–977.
Marshall, L. L. 1994. Physical and psychological abuse. In
Lulofs, R. S. 1994. Cosmopolitan communication and the evan- The dark side of interpersonal communication, edited by
gelical impulse transcending a paradox. Washington, DC: W. R. Cupach and B. H. Spitzberg, 281–311. Hillsdale, NJ:
ERIC Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED385868
Marsick, V. J., D. E. Weaver, and L. Yorks. 2014. Social net-
Lulofs, R., and D. Cahn. 2000. Conflict: From theory to action. works, social media, and conflict resolution. In The handbook
Boston: Allyn and Bacon: 317–325. of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (3rd ed.) edited by
Luskin, F. 2002. Forgive for good. San Francisco: Harper San P. T. Coleman, M. Deutsch, and E. C. Marcus. San Francisco,
Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass: 558– 580.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P., S. J. Tracy, and J. K. Alberts. 2007. Burned Martin, M. M., C. M. Anderson, and G. L. Horvath. 1996. Feel-
by bullying in the American workplace: Prevalence, perception, ings about verbal aggression: Justifications for sending and hurt
degree and impact. Journal of Management Studies 44, no. 6: from receiving verbally aggressive messages. Communication
837–862. Research Reports 13: 19–26.
374 References
Martin, M. W., and R. T. Denton. 1998. Defining forgiveness: An McLaren, R. M., and A. Sillars. 2014. Hurtful episodes in
empirical exploration of process and role. American Journal of parent–adolescent relationships: How accounts and attributions
Family Therapy 26, no. 4: 281–292. contribute to the difficulty of talking about hurt. Communica-
Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence. n.d. Retrieved tion Monographs 81, no. 3: 359–385.
from www.mnadv.org McLaughlin, A. 2006. Africa after war: Paths to forgiveness.
Maurer, N., and R. Seibel. 2010. Addressing problems of power Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.
and supervision in field placements. Clinical Law Review 17, csmonitorom/2006/1023-10-26p01s03-woaf.html.
145. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1707437. Menkel-Meadow, C. 1986. The transformation of disputes by
May, R. 1972. Power and innocence: A search for the sources of lawyers: What the dispute paradigm does and does not tell us.
violence. New York, NY: Norton. Missouri Journal of Dispute Resolution: 25–44.
Mayer, B. 2009. Staying with conflict: A strategic approach to Menz, F., and A. Al-Roubaie. 2008. Interruptions, status, and
ongoing disputes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. gender in medical interviews: The harder you brake, the longer
it takes. Discourse and Society 19, no. 5: 645–666.
McCall, M. W., Jr. 1979. Power, authority, and influence. In
Organizational behavior, edited by S. Kerr. Columbus, OH: Menzel, K. E. 1991. Judging the fairness of mediation: A critical
Grid Publishing. framework. Mediation Quarterly 9, no. 1: 3–20.
McCann, R. M., and J. M. Honeycutt. 2006. A cross-cultural Merriam, G. 2004. Author tells docs: Learn and use the word
analysis of imagined interactions. Human Communication “sorry.” The Missoulian.
Research 32: 274–301. Merrill, D. M. 1996. Conflict and cooperation among adult sib-
McClelland, D. C. 1969. The two faces of power. Journal of lings during the transition to the role of filial caregiver. Journal
International Affairs 24: 141–154. of Social and Personal Relationships 13: 399–413.
McCorkle, S., and J. Mills. 1992. Rowboat in a hurricane: Meta- Metcoff, J., and C. A. Whitaker. 1982. Family microevents:
phors of interpersonal conflict management. Communication Communication patterns for problem solving. In Normal family
Reports 5, no. 2: 57–66. processes, edited by F. Walsh. New York: Guilford Press.
McCready, V., J. E. Roberts, D. Bengala, H. Harris, G. Kingsley, Metts, S. 1994. Relational transgressions. In The dark side of
and C. Krikorian. 1996. A comparison of conflict tactics in the interpersonal communication, edited by W. R. Cupach and
supervisory process. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research B. H. Spitzberg, 217–239. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
39, no. 1: 191–200. Publishers.
McCullough, M. 2008. Beyond revenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Metz, M. E., B. R. S. Rosser, and N. Strapko. 1994. Differences
in conflict-resolution styles among heterosexual, gay, and les-
McCullough, M. E., E. L. Worthington, and K. C. Rachal. 1997. bian couples. Journal of Sex Research 31: 293–308.
Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Per-
Mikula, G., K. R. Scherer, and U. Athenstaedt. 1998. The role of
sonality and Social Psychology 73: 321–336.
injustice in the elicitation of differential emotional reactions.
McCullough, M., K. Pargament, and C. Thoresen. 2000. Forgiveness, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24, no. 7: 769–783.
theory, research, and practice. New York, London: Guilford Press.
———. 1988. Power dynamics in marital relationships. In
McDonald, G. W. 1980. Family power: The assessment of a Perspectives on marital interaction, edited by O. Noller and
decade of theory and research. Journal of Marriage and the M. A. Fitzpatrick, 78–97. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Family 42, no. 4: 841–854.
Miller, G. R., and M. Steinberg. 1975. Between people: A new
McEwan, I. 2001. Atonement. New York, Anchor Books. analysis of interpersonal communication. Chicago: Science
McFall, L. 1991. What’s wrong with bitterness? In Feminist eth- Research Associates.
ics, edited by C. Card. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Miller, J. B. 1986. What do we mean by relationships? In Work
McGonagle, K. A., R. C. Kessler, and I. H. Gotlib, (1993). The in progress. Stone Center Working Paper Series, no. 22.
effects of marital disagreement style, frequency, and outcome Wellesley, MA: Stone Center, Wellesley College.
on marital disruption. Journal of Social and Personal Relation- ———. 1991. Women’s and men’s scripts for interpersonal con-
ships, 10, 385–404. flict. Psychology of Women Quarterly 15: 15–29.
McGuigan, R., and N. Popp. 2007. The self in conflict: The evolution Milton, D. R., J. A. Nel, W. Havenga, and T. Rabie. 2015. Con-
in mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 25, no. 2: 221–238. flict management and job characteristics of nurses in South
McKay, K., M. Hill, S. Freedman, and R. Enright. 2007. Towards African public hospitals. Journal of Psychology in Africa 25,
a feminist empowerment model of forgiveness psychotherapy. no. 4: 288–296.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Practice, & Training 44, no. 1: 14–29. Minuchin, S. 1974. Families and family therapy. Cambridge,
McLaren and Sillars 2014 MA: Harvard University Press.
References 375
Mishler, E. G., and N. E. Waxler. 1968. Interaction in Families: Neff, K., and S. Harter. 2002. The authenticity of conflict reso-
An experimental study of family processes and schizophrenia. lutions among adult couples: Does women’s other-oriented
New York: John Wiley & Sons. behavior reflect their true selves. Sex Roles: A Journal of
Moeller, S. J., J. Crocker, and B. J. Bushman. 2009. Creating Research (November): 403–421.
hostility and conflict: Effects of entitlement and self-image Neill, J. R., and D. P. Kniskern. 1982. From psyche to system: The
goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45, Issue 2: evolving therapy of Carl Whitaker. New York: Guilford Press.
448–452. Neimeyer, G. J., and R. A. Neimeyer. 1985. Relational trajecto-
Moffitt, T. E., A. Caspi, R. F. Krueger, L. Magdol, P. A. Silva, ries: A personal construct contribution. Journal of Social and
R. Sydney, and G. Margolin. 1997. Do partners agree about abuse Personal Relationships 2: 325–349.
in their relationship? Psychological Assessment 9, no. 1: 47–57. Nelson, N., I. Bronstein, R. Shacham, and R. Ben-Ari. 2015.
Moore, C. 1996. The mediation process. 2nd ed. San Francisco: The power to oblige: Power, gender, negotiation behaviors,
Jossey-Bass. and their consequences. Negotiation and Conflict Management
———. 2003. The mediation process: Practical strategies for Research 8, no. 1: 1–24.
resolving conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nesse, R. 1990. Evolutional explanations of emotions. Human
Moran, R. T., J. Allen, R. Wichman, T. Ando, and M. Sasano. Nature 1: 261–289.
1994. Japan. In Global perspectives on organizational conflict, Nesse, R. M. 2014. Comment: A general “theory of emotion”
edited by M. A. Rahim and A. A. Blum, 33–52. Westport, CT: is neither necessary nor possible. Emotion Review 6, no. 4:
Praeger Publishing. 320–322.
Morse, C., and S. Metts. 2011. Situation and communicative Nesse, R., and P. Ellsworth. 2009. Evolution, emotions, and emo-
predictors of forgiveness following a relational transgression. tional disorders. American Psychologist 64, no. 2: 129–139.
Western Journal of Communication 25, no. 3: 239–258. Newman, Richard S. 2004. When elementary school students are
Morton, L., and P. M. Markey. 2009. Goal agreement and rela- harassed by peers: A self-regulative perspective on help seek-
tionship quality among college students and their parents. Per- ing. Elementary School Journal 103: 339–357.
sonality and Individual Differences 47, no. 8: 912–916. Nicolotti, L., M. el-Sheikh, and S. M. Whitson. 2003. Children’s
Murayama, A., C. S. Ryan, H. Shimizu, K. Kurebayashi, and coping with marital conflict and their adjustment and physical
A. Miura. 2015. Cultural differences in perceptions of intragroup health: Vulnerability and protective functions. Journal of Fam-
conflict and preferred conflict-management behavior: A scenario ily Psychology 17, no. 3: 315–326.
experiment. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 46, no. 1: Noble, C. 2011. Conflict management coaching: The CINERGY
88– 100. model. Toronto, Canada: CINERGY Coaching.
Murphy, C. M., and T. J. O’Farrell. 1994. Factors associated with Noer, D. 2010. Six crucial leadership competencies for an era of
marital aggression in male alcoholics. Journal of Family downsizing. Leader to Leader 56: 8–11.
Psychology 8, no. 3: 321–336. Noller, P., J. A. Feeney, D. Bonnell, and V. Callan. 1994. A lon-
Murphy, K. A., and D. I. Smith. 2010. Adolescent girl’s gitudinal study of conflict in early marriage. Journal of Social
responses to warning signs of abuse in romantic relationships: and Personal Relationships 11: 233–252.
Implications for youth-targeted relationship violence preven- NPR Staff. (2016). On the ever-present trauma of rape: “You
tion. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 25: 626–647. are not alone. don’t give up”. Retrieved from http://www.npr
Murray, J. A. 1986. Understanding competing theories of nego- .org/2016/05/22/477775422/on-the-ever-present-trauma-of-
tiation. Negotiation Journal 2 (April): 179–186. rape-you-are-not-alone-dont-give-up
Murray-Close, D., Crick, N. R., and Galotti, K. M. (2006). Nudler, O. 1993. In search of a theory of conflict resolution:
Children’s moral reasoning regarding physical and relational Taking a new look at worldviews analysis. Institute of Conflict
aggression. Social Development 15, no. 3: 345–372. Analysis and Resolution Newsletter 5, no. 5: 1–5.
Napier, A., and C. Whitaker. 1978. The family crucible. New Nugier, A., P. M. Niedenthal, M. Brauer, and P. Chekroun. 2007.
York: Harper & Row. Moral and angry emotions provoked by informal social control.
Neale, M. A., and M. H. Bazerman. 1983. The role of Cognition and Emotion 21, no. 8: 1699–1720.
perspective-taking ability in negotiating under different forms Obbie, M. 2010. Why victims face the criminals who hurt
of arbitration. ILR Review 36, no. 3: 378–388. them. Miller-McCune Magazine (December 20). Retrieved
Neale, M., and M. Bazerman. 1985. When will externally set from http://www.miller-mccune.com/legal-affairs
aspiration levels improve negotiator performance? A look at /why-victims-face-the-criminals-who-hurt-them-25993/
integrative behavior in a competitive market. Journal of Occu- O’Leary, K. D., J. Barling, I. Arias, A. Rosenbaum, J. Malone,
pational Behavior 6: 19–32. and A. Tyree. 1989. Prevalence and stability of physical
376 References
aggression between spouses: A longitudinal analysis. Journal Papp, P., O. Silverstein, and E. Carter. 1973. Family sculpting
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 57: 263–268. in preventive work with “well” families. Family Process 12,
Oetzel, J., A. J. Garcia, and S. Ting-Toomey. 2008. An analy- no. 1: 197–212.
sis of the relationships among face concerns and facework Parayitam, S., B. J. Olson, and Y. Bao. 2010. Task conflict, rela-
behaviors in perceived conflict situations: A four-culture inves- tionship conflict, and agreement-seeking behavior in Chinese
tigation. International Journal of Conflict Management 19: top management teams. International Journal of Conflict Man-
382–403. agement 21: 94–116.
Ohbuchi, K-I., and Atsumi, E. 2010. Avoidance brings Japanese Paul, J., and M. Paul. 1983. Do I have to give up me to be loved
employees what they care about in conflict management: Its by you? Minneapolis, MN: CompCare Publications.
functionality and “good member” image. Negotiation and Con- ———. 1987. If you really loved me. Minneapolis, MN: Comp-
flict Management Research 3: 117–129. Care Publications.
Olekalns, M., and D. Druckman. 2014. With feeling: How Pearson, J., N. Thonnes, and L. Vanderkooi. 1982. The decision
emotions shape negotiation. Negotiation Journal 30, no. 4: to mediate profiles—individuals who accept and reject the
455–478. opportunity to mediate contested child custody and visitation
Olson, D. H., and C. Rabunsky. 1972. Validity of four measures issues. Journal of Divorce 6 (Winter): 17–35.
of family power. Journal of Marriage and Family 34, no. 2: Pearson, J., D. West, and C. M. Turner. 1995. Gender and Com-
224–233. munication, McGraw-Hill.
Olson, D. H., D. H. Sprenkle, and C. Russell. 1979. Circumplex Pederson, J. R. (2014). Competing discourses of forgiveness: A
model of marital and family systems. Part 2. Cohesion and dialogic perspective. Communication Studies, 65(4), 353-369.
adaptability dimensions, family types and clinical applications.
Peng, A. C., and D. Tjosvold. 2011. Social face concerns and
Family Process 18: 3–28.
conflict avoidance of Chinese employees with their western or
Olweus, D. 1993. Bullying at school: What we know and what we Chinese managers. Human Relations 64: 1031–1050.
can do. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pierro, A., L. Cicero, and B. H. Raven. 2008. Motivated compli-
Olweus, D., and S. P. Limber. 2010. Bullying in school: Evalua- ance with bases of social power. Journal of Applied Social
tion and dissemination of the Olweus bullying prevention pro- Psychology 38: 1921–1944.
gram. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 80: 124–134.
Pike, G. R., and A. L. Sillars. 1985. Reciprocity of marital com-
Oyamot, C. M., Jr., P. T. Fuglestad, and M. Snyder, M. 2010. munication. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 2:
Balance of power and influence in relationships: The role of 303–324.
self-monitoring. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
Planalp, S. 1999. Communicating emotion: Social, moral, and
27, 23–46.
cultural processes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Ozkalp E., S. Sungur, and A. A. Ozdemir. 2009. Conflict man- Press.
agement styles of Turkish managers. Journal of European
Poole, M. S., and J. T. Garner. 2006. Perspective on workgroup
Industrial Training 33: 419–438.
conflict and communication. In The Sage handbook of conflict
Pace, R, C. 1988. Communication pattern in high and low con- communication, edited by J. G. Oetzel and S. Ting-Toomey,
sensus discussions: A Descriptive analysis. Southern Speech 267–292. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Communication Journal 53: 184–202. Popple, P. R. 1984. Negotiation: A critical skill for social work
Palfrey, J., D. Sacco, D. Boyd, L. DeBonis, and Internet Safety administrators. Administration in Social Work 8: 1–11.
Technical Task Force. 2009. Enhancing child safety and online Posner, J., J. Russell, and B. Peterson. 2005. The circumplex
technologies. Final report of the internet safety technical task model of affect: An integrative approach to affective neu-
force to the multi-state working group on social networking of roscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology, in
state attorneys general of the United States. Development and psychopathology, 17, p. 716. Cambridge
Palmer, J. 1997. Finding a way to forgive: Reclaiming power and University Press.
wholeness. Prism: A Theological Forum for the UCC (Spring): Pratto, F., I-C. Lee, J.Y. Tan, and E. V. Pitpitanand. 2010. Power
89–99. basis theory: A psychoecological approach to power. In Social
Panahon 2015 motivation, edited by D. Dunning, 191–230. New York: Taylor
Panahon, V. 2015. Effects of child exposure to domestic violence and Francis.
(master’s thesis, California State University, Los Angeles, CA). Pruitt, D. G. 1981. Negotiation behavior. New York: Academic
Retrieved from search.proquest.com. Press.
Papa, M. J., and E. J. Natalle. 1989. Gender, strategy selection, ———. 1983a. Achieving integrative agreements. In Negotiating
and discussion satisfaction in interpersonal conflict. Western in organizations, edited by M. H. Bazerman and R. Lewicki.
Journal of Speech Communication 53: 260–272. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
References 377
Pukui, M. 1979. Nana i ke kumu: Look to the source. Honolulu, First-order factor model and its invariance across groups. Jour-
HI: Queen Lili’uokalani Children’s Center. nal of Applied Psychology 80: 122–132.
Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. 2008. Father-daughter relationships: Raiffa, H. 1982. The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge,
Examining family communication patterns and interpersonal MA: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press.
communication satisfaction. Communication Research Reports Randeree, K., and A. T. E. Faramawy. 2010. Islamic perspectives
25: 23–33. on conflict management within project managed environments.
Putnam, L. L. 1986. Negotiation of intergroup conflict in orga- Paper for the BT Centre for Major Programme Management,
nizations. Lecture delivered at Baylor University, Waco, TX, Said Business School, University of Oxford.
October 21. Rands, M., G. Levinger, and G. D. Mellinger. 1981. Patterns of
———. 1988. Reframing integrative and distributive bargain- conflict resolution and marital satisfaction. Journal of Family
ing: A process perspective. Revised manuscript. Lafayette, IN: Issues 2, no. 3: 297–321.
Purdue University. Raskauskas, J., and A. Huynh. 2015. The process of coping with
———. 1996. A gendered view of negotiation. Address to cyberbullying: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent
Communication Studies Department, University of Montana, Behavior 23: 118–125.
Missoula, September 26. Raush, H. L., W. A. Barry, R. K. Hertel, and M. A. Swain. 1974.
Putnam, L. 2010. In point of practice: Communication as chang- Communication conflict and marriage. Oxford, England:
ing the negotiation game. Journal of Applied Communication Jossey-Bass.
Research 38, no. 4: 325–335. Raven, B. 2008. The bases of power and the power/interaction
Putnam, L. L., and J. P. Folger. 1988. Communication, con- model of interpersonal influence. Analyses of Social Issues and
flict, and dispute resolution: The study of interaction and the Public Policy 8: 1–22.
development of conflict theory. Communication Research 15: Raven, B. H., and J. R. P. French Jr. 1956. A formal theory of
349–359. social power. Psychological Review 63: 181–194.
Putnam, L. L., and T. S. Jones. 1982a. Reciprocity in negotia- Ray, L., ed. 1982. Alternative dispute resolution: Bane or boon to
tions: An analysis of bargaining interaction. Communication attorneys? Washington, DC: Special Committee on Alternative
Monographs 49: 181–191. Means of Dispute Resolution of the Public Services Division,
———. 1982b. The role of communication in bargaining. American Bar Association.
Human Communication Research 8: 162–280. Red Willow Learning 2015
Putnam, L. L., and M. S. Poole. 1987. Conflict and negotiation. Redmond, V., J. K. Jameson, and A. R. Binder. 2016. How
In Handbook of organizational communication: An interdis- superior–subordinate relationship quality and conflict manage-
ciplinary perspective, edited by F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, ment styles influence an employee’s use of upward dissent tac-
K. H. Roberts, and L. W. Porter. Newbury Park, CA: Sage tics. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 9,
Publications. no. 2: 158–176.
Rack, C. 2000. The effects of culturally-based fairness norms Reed, G., and R. Enright. 2006. The effects of forgiveness ther-
on disputant negotiations in mediated small claims cases. apy on depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress for women
Paper presented at Peace Studies Association Conference, after spousal emotional abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clini-
Spring. cal Psychology 74, no. 5: 920–929.
Rafferty, R., and T. Vander Ven. 2014. “I hate everything about Reeves, T. 2010. Practicing with the heart as metaphor. Associa-
you”: A qualitative examination of cyberbullying and on-line tion for Conflict Resolution Newsletter (Spring): 17–20.
aggression in a college sample. Deviant Behavior 35, no. 5: Reznik et al. 2015
364–377.
Richo, D. 2002. How to be an adult in relationships: The five
Rahim, M. A. 1983. A measure of styles of handling inter- keys to mindful loving. Boston: Shambala Publications.
personal conflict. Academy of Management Journal 26: Ridley, C. A., and C. M. Feldman. 2003. Female domestic vio-
368–376. lence toward male partners: Exploring conflict responses and
Rahim, M. A. 2011. Managing conflict in organizations. 4th ed. outcomes. Journal of Family Violence 18, no. 3: 157– 171.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Riskin, L. 2010. Annual Saltman Lecture: Further beyond rea-
Rahim, M. A., and N. R. Magner. 1995. Confirmatory factor son: Emotions, the core concerns, and mindfulness in negotia-
analysis of the styles of handling interpersonal conflict: First- tion. Nevada Law Journal 10: 289–337.
order factor model and its invariance across groups. Journal of Rivers, S. E., M. A. Brackett, N. A. Katulak, and P. Salovey.
Applied Psychology 80, no. 1: 122–132. 2006. Regulating anger and sadness: An exploration of discreet
Rahim, M. A., and N. R. Magner. 1995. Confirmatory fac- emotions in emotion regulation. Journal of Happiness Studies
tor analysis of the styles of handling interpersonal conflict: 8: 393–427.
378 References
Rogan, R. G., and R. Hammer. 1994. Crisis negotiations: A prelimi- Sabourin, T. C., and G. H. Stamp. 1995. Communication and
nary investigation of facework in naturalistic conflict discourse. the experience of dialectical tensions in family life: An exami-
Journal of Applied Communication Research 22: 216–231. nation of abusive and nonabusive families. Communication
Roland, E., and E. Bru. 2010. The Zero programme against bul- Monographs 62: 213–242.
lying: effects of the programme in the context of Norwegian Sadker, M., and D. Sadker. 1994. Failing at fairness: How
manifesto against bullying. Social Psychological Education 13: American schools cheat girls. New York: Macmillan Press.
41–55. Safilios-Rothschild, C. 1970. The study of family power struc-
Roloff, M. E. 2009. Links between conflict management research ture: A review 1960–1969. Journal of Marriage and the Family
and practice. Journal of Applied Communication Research 37: 32, no. 4: 539–549.
339–348. Salami, S. 2010. Conflict resolution strategies and organizational
Roloff, M. E., and D. H. Cloven. 1994. When partners transgress: citizenship behavior: The moderating role of trait emotional
Maintaining violated relationships. In Communication and intelligence. Social Behavior and Personality 36, no. 1: 75–86.
relational maintenance, edited by D. J. Canary and L. Stafford, Salvatore, J. E., S. I. Kuo, R. D. Steele, J. A. Simpson, and
23–24. New York: Academic Press. W. A. Collins. 2011. Recovering from conflict in romantic
Rosen, K. H. 1996. The ties that bind women to violent premarital relationships: A developmental perspective. Psychological
relationships: Processes of seduction and entrapment. In Family Science 22, no. 3: 376–383.
violence from a communication perspective, edited by D. D. Cahn Sander, F. E. A. 1977. Report on the national conference on
and S. A. Lloyd. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. minor disputes resolution. Washington, DC: American Bar
Rosenberg, M. 2003. Nonviolent communication: A language of Association Press.
life. Encinitas, CA: Puddle Dancer Press. Sandy 2014
Rosenberg, M. B. 2005. Speak peace in a world of conflict: What Sandy, S. V. 2014. The development of conflict resolution skills:
you say next will change your world. Encinitas, CA: Puddle Preschool to adulthood. In The handbook of conflict resolution:
Dancer Press. Theory and practice (3rd ed.) edited by P. T. Coleman, M. Deutsch,
Rosetto, R. Lannutti, & E. Strauman. 2015. Death on Facebook: and E. C. Marcus. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass: 430–463.
Examining the roles of social media communication for the Sanford, K. 2007. Hard and soft emotions during conflict: Inves-
bereaved. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, vol. 32, 7. tigating married couples and other relationships. Personal
Rothman, J. 1997. Resolving identity-based conflict in nations, Relationships 14: 65–90.
organizations, and communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Satir, V. 1967. Conjoint family therapy. Palo Alto, CA: Science
Rubin, J. Z. 1996. Proliferation process in conflict. Address to and Behavior Books.
faculty and students. University of Montana, Missoula, May. ———. 1972. Peoplemaking. Palo Alto, CA: Science and
Rubin, J. Z., and B. R. Brown. 1975. The social psychology of Behavior Books.
bargaining and negotiation. New York: Academic Press. Scarduzio, J. A., and S. M. Redden. 2015. The positive outcomes
Runde, C. E., and Tim A. Flanagan. 2007. Becoming a conflict of negative emotional displays: A multi-level analysis of emo-
competent leader: How you and your organization can manage tion in bureaucratic work. Electronic Journal of Communica-
conflict effectively. New York: John Wiley & Sons. tion 25, no. 3/4: 1–17.
Rushing, J., and T. Frentz. 1995. Projecting the shadow: The cyborg Schelling, T. C. 1960. The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA:
hero in American film. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Harvard University Press.
Rushing, J. H. 1983. Rhetorical criticism as analogic process. Schuetz, J. 1978. Communicative competence and the bargaining
Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association/ of Watergate. Western Journal of Speech Communication 41:
American Forensic Association Summer Conference on Argu- 105–115.
mentation, Alta, UT, July. Shakespeare, W. 1957. The Tragical History of Hamlet Prince of
Denmark. New York: Penguin Books.
Rutter, M., C. E. Izard, and P. B. Read (eds.). 1986. Depression
in young people: Developmental and clinical perspectives. Shapiro, D. 2011. From signal to semantic: uncovering the emo-
New York: Guilford Press. tional dimension of negotiation. Nevada Law Review 18: 49–53.
Saavedra, M. C., K. E. Chapman, and R. D. Rogge. 2010. Clari- Shapiro D. 2016. Negotiating the Nonnegotiable: How to resolve
fying links between attachment and relationship quality: Hos- your most emotionally charged conflicts. Viking Press, New York.
tile conflict and mindfulness as moderators. Journal of Family Shapiro, D. L. 2010. Relational identity theory: A systematic
Psychology 24, no. 4: 380–390. approach for transforming the emotional dimension of conflict.
Sabourin, T. C. 1995. The role of negative reciprocity in spou- American Psychologist 65, no. 7: 634–645.
sal abuse: A relational control analysis. Journal of Applied Shapiro, R. 2010. The trauma treatment handbook: Protocols
Communication Research 23: 271–283. across the spectrum. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.
References 379
Shapiro, S. 2010. Revisiting the teachers’ lounge: Reflections Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). Institutional betrayal. The
on emotional experience and teacher identity. Teaching and American Psychologist, 69(6), 575–587.
Teacher Education 26, no. 3: 616–621. Smith, D. M. 2008. Divide or conquer: How great teams turn
Sheldon, A. 1992. Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic challenges to conflict into strength. New York: Penguin Group.
self-assertion and how young girls meet them. Merrill-Palmer Socha, T. 2008. Building Positive Communication Pedagogy:
Quarterly 38: 95–117. Positive Experiential Communication Learning in Human
Sherif, M., and C. W. Sherif. 1956. An outline of social psychol- Relating. Paper presented at the National Communication
ogy. Rev. ed. New York: Harper & Brothers. Association, San Diego, November.
Shimanoff, S. B. 1980. Communication rules: Theory and Some, S. 2003. Falling out of grace: Meditations on loss, heal-
research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. ing, and wisdom. El Sobrante, CA: North Bay Books.
Shriver, D. 1995. An ethic for enemies, forgiveness in politics. Speakman, J., and L. Ryals. 2010. A re-evaluation of conflict
New York: Oxford University Press. theory for the management of multiple, simultaneous conflict
Siegel, D. J. 1999. Developing mind: Toward a neurobiology of episodes. International Journal of Conflict Management 21:
interpersonal experience. New York: Guilford. 186–201.
Siegert, J. R., and G. H. Stamp. 1994. “Our first big fight” as a Spring, J. 1996. After the affair. New York: Harper.
milestone in the development of close relationships. Communi- Stafford, W. 1977. A ritual to read to each other. In William
cation Monographs 61: 345–360. Stafford, Stories that could be true: New and collected poems.
Sierau, S., and P. Y. Herzberg. 2011. Conflict resolution as a New York: Harper and Row.
dyadic mediator: Considering the partner perspective on Stets, J. E., and D. A. Henderson. 1991. Contextual factors
conflict resolution. European Journal of Personality, online surrounding conflict resolution while dating: Results from a
version 26 May. national study. Family Relations 40: 29–36.
Siffert, A., and B. Schwarz. 2011. Parental conflict resolution Stevens, A. 1989. The roots of war: A Jungian perspective. New
styles and children’s adjustment: Children’s appraisals and York: Paragon House.
emotion regulation as mediators. The Journal of Genetic Psy- Stewart, J., K. Zediker, and S. Witteborn. 2005. Together: Com-
chology 172: 21–39. municating interpersonally, a social construction approach.
Sillars, A. L. In press 2009. Interpersonal conflict. In C. Berger, Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company.
M. Roloff, and D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (eds.). Handbook of Stobbe, M. 2011. Survey reveals ‘astounding’ data. The Missou-
communication science. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. lian (December 15): A2.
———. 2002. For better or worse: Rethinking the role of com- Stone, D., B. Patton, and S. Heen. 1999. Difficult conversations:
munication and “misperception” in family conflict. B. Aubrey How to discuss what matters most. New York: Penguin Books.
Fisher Memorial Lecture, Department of Communication,
University of Utah. Straus, M. 1999. The controversy over domestic violence by
women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of sci-
———. 2009. Interpersonal conflict. In Handbook of communi- ence analysis. http://www.batteredmen.com/straus21.htm.
cation science. 2nd ed., edited by C. Berger, M. Roloff, and
D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Straus, M. A., S. L. Hamby, S. Boney-McCoy, and D. B. Sugarman.
1996. The revised conflict tactics scale (CTS2): Development
Sillars, A., D. J. Canary, and M. Tafoya. 2004. Communication, and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues
conflict, and the quality of family relationships. In Handbook 17: 283–316.
of family communication, edited by A. L. Vangelisti, 413–446.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stuart, R. B. 1980. Helping couples change: A social learning
approach to marital therapy. New York: Guilford Press.
Simpson, J., W. A. Collins, S. Tran, and K. C. Haydon. 2007.
Attachment and the experience and expression of emotions Stulberg, J. 1987. Taking charge/Managing conflict. New York:
in adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. D. C. Heath & Company.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92: 355–367. Sugarman, A. B., and G. T. Hotaling. 1989. Rating violence:
Simpson, J., W. Collins, and J. Salvatore. 2011. The impact of Prevalence, context, and risk markers. In Violence in dating
early interpersonal experience on adult romantic relationships relationships, edited by M. A. Pirog-Good and J. E. Stets,
function: Recent findings from the Minnesota longitudinal 3–32. New York: Praeger.
study of risk and adaptation. Current Directions in Psychologi- Sulmeyer, S. H., V. A. Adams, and B. Wood. 2015. The interdis-
cal Science 20: 355–359. ciplinary settlement conference: A grassroots alternative for
Smaby, M., and C. D. Maddeux. 2010. Basic and advanced coun- resolving high-conflict parenting disputes in lean times. Family
selor training: The skilled counselor training model. Belmont, Court Review 53, no. 4: 632–649.
CA: Brooks Cole. Survivors of abuse Web site www.ascasupport.org, 2004.
380 References
Tannen, D. 1990. You just don’t understand: Women and men in Tracy, S. J., P. Lutgen-Sandvik, and J. K. Alberts. 2006. Is it
conversation. New York: William Morrow. really bad? Exploring the emotional pain of workplace bullying
———. 1994. Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford Univer- through narratives, drawings, and metaphors. Paper presented
sity Press. at the annual convention of the National Communication Asso-
ciation, Chicago (November).
Tasa, K., G. Whyte, and G. J. Leonardelli. 2013. Goals and
negotiations. In New developments in goal setting and task per- Tracy, S. J., P. Lutgen-Sandvik, and J. K. Alberts. 2006. Night-
formance edited by E. A. Locke and G. P. Latham. New York, mares, demons, and slaves: Exploring the painful metaphors of
NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group: 397–414. workplace bullying. Management Communication Quarterly
20, no. 2: 148–185.
Tatar, M. 2009. Teachers turning for help to school counselors and
colleagues: Toward a mapping of relevant predictors. British Triandis, H. C. 1980. Handbook of cross cultural psychology.
Journal of Guidance and Counseling 37, no. 2: 107–127. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Tavris, C. 1989. Anger: The misunderstood emotion. 1982. Trubisky, P., S. Ting-Toomey, and S-L. Lin. 1991. The influence
Reprint. New York: Simon & Schuster/Touchstone. of individualism-collectivism and self-monitoring on conflict
styles. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 15:
Thomas, K. 1976. Conflict and conflict management. In Hand- 65–83.
book of industrial and organizational psychology, edited by
M. D. Dunnette. Chicago: Rand McNally. Turk, J. L., and N. W. Bell. 1972. Measuring power in families.
Journal of Marriage and Family 34, no. 2: 215–222.
Thomas, K. W., and L. R. Pondy. 1977. Toward an “intent”
model of conflict management among principal parties. Human Tutu, D. 2004. No future without forgiveness. New York:
Relations 30: 1089–1102. Doubleday.
Thompson, L. L. 2001. The mind and heart of the negotiator. Tutzauer, F., and M. E. Roloff. 1988. Communication processes
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. leading to integrative agreements: Three paths to joint benefits.
Communication Research 15, no. 4: 360–380.
Thompson, S. C., S. Ting, A. Gonzalez, and A. Ryan. 2011.
Could that happen to me? Individual differences in perceptions Tuval-Mashiach, R., and S. Shulman. 2006. Resolution of dis-
of threat and intentions to take protective action. Journal of agreements between romantic partners, among adolescents, and
Applied Biobehavioral Research 16: 78–97. young adults: Qualitative analysis of interaction discourses.
Journal of Research on Adolescence 16, no. 4: 561–588.
Timmers, M., A. Fischer, and A. Manstead. 1998. Gender dif-
ferences in motives for regulating closeness. Personality and Tyler, M. C., and S. S. Raines. 2007. Colloquy: The human face
Social Psychology Bulletin 24: 974–985. of on-line dispute resolution. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 23:
333–404.
Ting-Toomey, S. 2010. Applying dimensional value in under-
standing intercultural communication. Communication Mono- Tyler, T. R. 1987. The psychology of disputant concerns in
graphs 77: 169–180. mediation. Negotiation Journal 3: 367–374.
Ting-Toomey, S., and J. G. Oetzel. 2001. Managing intercultural Umbreit, M. S. 1995. The development and impact of victim-
conflict effectively. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. offender mediation in the united states. Mediation Quarterly
12, no. 3: 263–276.
Tinsley, C. A. 2001. How negotiators get to yes: Predicting the
constellation of strategies used across cultures to negotiate con- Umbreit, M., R. B. Coates, and B. Vos. 2004. Victim-offender
flict. Journal of Applied Psychology 86, no. 4: 583. mediation: Three decades of practice and research. Conflict
Resolution Quarterly 22, no. 1–2: 279–303.
Tippet, K. 2011. Civil Conversations Project. Retrieved from
http://publicradio.org/first-person/civil-conversations/ Urban, E. 2005. Competition and interpersonal conflict in same-
sex platonic friendships. The Hilltop Review 1, no. 3.
Tjosvold, D., P. Wu, and Y. F Chen. 2010. The effects of collec-
tivist and individualist values on conflict and decision making: Ury, William. 2000. The third side: Why we fight and how we
An experiment in China. Journal of Applied Social Psychology can stop. New York: Viking Penguin.
40: 2904–2926. Ury, W., J. Brett, and S. Goldberg. 1988. Getting disputes
Tomkins, S. S. 1962. Affect, imagery, and consciousness: 1. The resolved. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
positive affects. New York: Springer. Ury, W. L. (1990). Dispute resolution notes from the Kalahari.
Tomkins, S. S. 1963. Affect, imagery, and consciousness: 2. The Negotiation Journal 6: 229–238.
negative affects. New York: Springer. Van de Vliert, E. 1981. Siding and other reactions to a conflict.
Totman, S. 2014. Ironies leaders navigate: What the science of Journal of Conflict Resolution 25, no. 3: 495–520.
power reveals about the art of leadership and the distinct art of ———. 1985. Escalative intervention in small-group conflicts.
church leadership. Eugene, OR: Resource Publications. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 21: 19–36.
References 381
Vangelisti, A. 1994. Messages that hurt. In The dark side of Watson, C. 1994. Gender versus power as a predictor of negotia-
interpersonal communication, edited by W. R. Cupach and tion behavior and outcomes. Negotiation Journal 10: 117–127.
B. Spitzberg. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publisher. Watzlawick, P., J. H. Beavin, and D. D. Jackson. 1967. Pragmat-
Vangelisti, A. L., and R. Sprague. 1998. Guilt and hurt: Simi- ics of human communication: A study of interaction patterns,
larities, distinctions, and conversational strategies. In P. A. pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: W. W. Norton &
Andersen and L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communica- Company.
tion and emotion. San Diego, CA: Academic, 123–154.
Weathers, M. R., and M. C. Hopson. 2015. “I define what hurts
VanLear, C. A. 1992. Marital communication across the genera- me”: A co-cultural theoretical analysis of communication fac-
tions: Learning and rebellion, continuity and change. Journal tors related to digital dating abuse. Howard Journal of Commu-
of Social and Personal Relationships 9, no. 1: 103–123. nications 26, no. 1: 95–113.
Velez, J. (2009) The road to forgiveness. Retrieved from http:// Weick, K. E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing. Read-
www.feelingsunlimited.com/TheRoadToForgiveness.html. ing, MA: Addison Wesley.
Velotti P., S. Balzarotto, and S. Tagliabue. 2016. Understanding Weick, K. E. 1998. Improvisation as a Mindset for Organiza-
the connection between self-esteem and aggression: The medi- tional Analysis. Organization Science. 95, 543–555.
ating role of emotional dysregulation. Aggressive Behavior 42,
Weingart et al. 2015
no. 1: 3–15.
Weingart, L. R., K. J. Behfar, C. Bendersky, G. Todorova, and
Vissing, Y., and W. Baily. 1996. Parent-to-child verbal aggres- K. A. Jehn. 2015. The directness and oppositional intensity of
sion. In Family violence from a communication perspective, conflict expression. The Academy of Management Review 40,
edited by D. D. Cahn and S. A. Lloyd, 85–107. Hillsdale, NJ: no. 2: 235–262.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Welwood, J. (1990). Journey of the heart: Intimate relationship
Vivian, D., and J. Langhinrichsen-Rohling. 1994. Are and the pathos of love. New York: HarperCollins.
bidirectionally violent couples mutually victimized? A
Wertheim, J., and D. Epstein. 2011. This Is Penn State. Sports
gender-sensitive comparison. Violence and Victims 9: 107–124.
Illustrated (November 11): 40–58.
Waldron, V., and D. Kelley. 2005. Forgiving communication as
Westaby, J. D., and N. Redding. 2014. Social networks, social
a response to relational transgressions. Journal of Social and
media, and conflict resolution. In The handbook of conflict
Personal Relationships 22, no. 6: 723–742.
resolution: Theory and practice (3rd ed.) edited by P. T.
Waldron, V. R., and D. L. Kelley. 2008. Communicating forgive- Coleman, M. Deutsch, and E. C. Marcus. San Francisco, CA:
ness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Jossey-Bass: 998–1022.
Walker, G. B. 1988. Bacharach and Lawler’s theory of argument White, J. B., R. Tynan, A. D. Galinsky, and L. Thompson. 2004.
in bargaining: A critique. Journal of the American Forensic Face threat sensitivity in negotiation: Roadblock to agreement
Association 24, no. 4: 218–232. and joint gain. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Wall, V. D., Jr., and G. Galanes. 1986. The SYMLOG dimen- Processes 94, no. 2: 102–125.
sions and small group conflict. Central States Speech Journal White, J. W., and J. A. Humphrey. 1994. Women’s aggression in
37: 61–78. heterosexual conflicts. Aggressive Behavior 20: 195–202.
Wallenfelsz, K., and D. Hample. 2010. The role of taking conflict Wiesel, E. (2008). A god who remembers. National Public Radio.
personally in imagined interactions about conflict. Southern Retrieved from: http://www.npr.org/2008/04/07/89357808
Communication Journal 75, no. 5: 471–487. /a-god-who-remembers
Walsh, F. 1984. Normal family processes. New York: Guilford Wiesenthal, S. 1998. The sunflower. New York: Schocken Books.
Press. Wildflower, L., and D. Brenna (eds.). 2011. The handbook of
Walton, R. E. 1969. Interpersonal peacemaking: Confrontation knowledge-based coaching: from theory to practice. New York:
and third-party consultation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley John Wiley & Sons.
Publishing. Wilhelm, R., trans. 1977. The I Ching. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Wang, H., and Y. A. Nasr. 2011. Task conflict handling styles University Press.
between colleagues with bad personal relationship: the effect Wilmot, W. W. 1976. The influence of personal conflict styles of
of relationship conflict on task conflict. Master’s thesis, Umea teachers on student attitudes toward conflict. Paper presented
School of Business, Sweden. to Instructional Communication Division, International Com-
Wang, S. J. 2010. Public diplomacy and organizational conflict: munication Association Convention, Portland, OR, April 15.
A study of Taiwanese government information offices in the Wilmot, W. W. 1995. Relational communication. New York, NY:
United States. Dissertation, University of LaVerne. McGraw-Hill.
382 References
Wilmot, W. W., and R. H. Andes. 2004. Better bargains. Unpub- adolescent behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 17,
lished manuscript. no. 7: 707–721.
Wilmot, W., and J. Hocker, J. 2011. Interpersonal conflict (8th Yoshimura, S. 2007. Goals and emotional outcomes of revenge
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw- Hill. activities in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and
Wilson, S. R. 1992. Face and facework in negotiation. In Com- Personal Relationships 24, no. 1: 87–98.
munication and negotiation, edited by L. L. Putnam. Young-Bruehl, E., and F. Bethelard. 2000. Cherishment: A psy-
Wilson, S. R., A. D. Kunkel, S. J. Robson, J. O. Olufowote, and chology of the heart. New York: The Free Press.
J. Soliz. 2009. Identity implications of relationship (re)defini- Young-Eisendrath, P. 1994. You’re not what I expected: Learning
tion goals: An analysis of face threats and facework as young to love the opposite sex. New York, NY: Touchstone.
adults initiate, intensify, and disengage from romantic relation-
Young-Eisendrath, P. 1997. You’re not what I expected: Love
ships. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 28: 32–61.
after the romance has ended. New York: Morrow Press.
Winslade, J., and G. D. Monk. 2008. Practicing narrative media-
———. 2000. Self and transcendence: A postmodern approach
tion: Loosening the grip of conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
to analytical psychology in practice. Psychoanalytic Dialogues
Winslade, J., and G. Monk. 2001. Narrative mediation: A new 10, no. 3: 427–428.
approach to conflict resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Yuan, W. 2010. Conflict management among American and
Wissler, R. L. 2004. The effectiveness of court-connected dispute Chinese employees in multinational organizations in China.
resolution in civil cases. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 22, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 17:
no. 2: 55–88. 299–311.
Wood, J. T. 1997. Gendered lives: Communication, gender and Zehr, H. 1999. Restoring Justice. In God and the victim, edited
culture. 2nd. ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. by L. Lampman and M. Shattuck, 131–159. Grand Rapids, MI:
Workplace Bullying Institute and Zogby International. 2007. U.S. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
workplace bullying survey, 2007.
Zehr, H. 2001. Transcending: Reflections of crime victims. Inter-
Worthington, E. L., and D. Drinkard. 2000. Promoting reconcili- course, PA: Good Books.
ation through psychoeducational and therapeutic interventions.
Zhang, Q. 2015. A U.S.-China investigation of the effects of
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 26: 1.
perceived partner conflict styles on outcome satisfaction:
Yankelovich, D. 1999. The magic of dialogue: Transforming con- The mediating role of perceived partner conflict competence.
flict into cooperation. New York: Simon and Schuster. Communication Quarterly 63, no. 1: 1–22.
Yarbrough, E. A., W. W. Wilmot. 1995. Artful mediation: Construc- Zhang, Y. B., J. Harwood, and M. L. Hummert. 2005. Percep-
tive conflict at work. Boulder, CO: Cairns Publishing Boulder. tions of conflict management styles in Chinese intergenera-
Yelsma, P. 1995. Couples’ affective orientations and their verbal tional dyads. Communication Monographs 72, no. 1: 71–97.
abusiveness. Communication Quarterly 43: 100–114. Zietlow, P. H., and A. L. Sillars. 1988. Life-stage differences in
Yexley, M., and I. Borowsky. 2002. Correlation between differ- communication during marital conflicts. Journal of Social and
ent experiences of intrafamilial physical violence and violent Personal Relationships 5, no. 2: 223–245.
Name Index
A Bazerman, M. N., 263 Browning, J., 186
Beavin, J. H., 77 Bruning, S. D., 170
Abe, J. A., 199
Bechtoldt, H., 289 Brutz, J., 187
Abigail, R., 207
Bechtoldt, M. N., 85 Brygger, M. P., 186
Acitelli, L. K., 65
Beck, S. J., 237 Buechler, S., 214
Ackerman, B. P., 208
Begin, M., 268 Burden, S. L., 238
Alberts, J. K., 51, 126, 133, 140, 142, 170
Belenky, M., 69 Burman, B., 12
Al-Hamdan, Z., 180
Bell, C., 197 Burrell, N., 308
Aliakbari, M., 180
Bell, M. L., 187 Bush, G., 342
Allen, C. M., 187
Bell, N. W., 129 Bush, R. A. B., 90
Allen, J., 71
Bem, S., 197 Bushman, B. J., 84
Allen, M., 308
Bendersky, C., 257 Bussey, K., 142
Almeida, D. M., 200
Berger, C. R., 128 Butovskaya, M. L., 225
Alper, B. S., 301, 312
Bergmann, T. J., 13 Buttell, F. P., 184, 187
Al-Roubaie, A., 68
Berkman Center for Internet and Society Buttny, R., 86
Amaral-Gueterres, I., 327
at Harvard, 141
Amato, P. R., 48
Berry, K., 140, 141, 214, 289 C
American Psychological Association, 214
Bethelard, F., 121 Cahill, M., 112
Amiri, M., 180
Bevan, J. L., 76 Cahn, D., 207, 321
Anderson, C. M., 169
Bianco, C., 290 Callan, V., 190
Ando, T., 71
Billikopf, G., 301 Camara, K. A., 21
Anthony, D., 180
Bender, A. R., 188 Cameron, K. A., 132
Archer, J., 169
Bineham, J., 351 Camgoz, S. M., 180
Arendt, H., 327
Bjorkqvist, K., 67, 170 Campbell, J., 54
Arias, I., 184
Blechman, F., 43 Canary, D. J., 68, 162
Arseneault, L., 142
Boden, J. M., 206 Canevello, A., 83
Association for Conflict Resolution, 304
Bodtker, A. M., 195, 197 Carment, D. W., 71
Athenstaedt, U., 206
Bogo, M., 187 Carnevale, P. J. D., 287
Atsumi, E., 160
Bohm, P. E., 313 Carney, M. M., 184, 187
Augsburger, D. W., 70, 71
Bond, M. H., 74, 187 Carroll, S. J., 13
Aula, P., 235, 266
Boney-McCoy, S., 183 Carson, J. W., 39
Aureli, F., 225
Bonnell, D., 190 Carson, K. M., 39
Averill, J. R., 211
Borisoff, D., 72, 73 Carstensen, L. L., 200
Avivi, Y. E., 91
Borowsky, I., 186 Carter, E., 231, 236
Avtgis, T. A., 169
Botta, R. A., 11 Carter, J., 268
Bourg, W. J., 11 Carver, C. S., 91
B Bowes, L., 142 Caspi, A., 169
Bachman, G. F., 210 Boyd, D., 141 Catalano, R. F., 168
Backlund, P., 67 Brackett, M. A., 206 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Baily, W., 169 Brager, G., 106 320, 326
Baldwin, D. C., Jr., 13 Braiker, H. B., 5 Chapman, S. G., 218
Bang, H., 69 Braithwaite, D. O., 11, 237 Charles, S. T., 200
Bao, Y., 80 Braman, R., 160 Chaudhry, A. A., 180
Baril (1993), 69 Brandimonte, M. A., 290 Chekroun, P., 213
Barkan, E., 342 Branislava, B., 180 Chen, Y. F., 180
Barling, J., 184 Brauer, M., 213 Chenevert, D., 181
Barnett, R. C., 68 Breggin, P. B., 36 Christakis, N. A., 231
Barnlund, D. C., 71 Brenna, D., 295 Chung, C., 135
Baron, R. A., 30 Brett, J. M., 301 Cicero, L., 111
Barsness, Z. I., 301 Brew, Z-X., 160 Clinchy, B., 69
Bartholomew, K., 185, 186 Brinkert, R., 13, 171, 295, 296 Clinton, B., 342
Baskin, T., 329 Brinkert, S., 297 Cloke, K., 198, 201, 303
Bateson, G., 5, 47 Brockriede, W., 170 Cloven, D. H., 66, 319
Baucom, D. H., 39 Brommel, B. J., 231 Coan, J., 210
Baumeister, R. F., 206, 336, 338, 341 Broome, B. J., 90 Coates, R. B., 306
Baumeister, R. R., 135, 186 Brown, B. R., 85 Cobb, A. T., 77
Baxter, L. A., 7, 11, 201, 237 Brown, L., 338 Cobb, R. J., 185, 186
Bazerman, M. H., 103, 263, 264 Brown, L. M., 69 Cohen, D., 74
383
384 Name Index
Coleman (2014), 231 Edwards, J., 342 Garcia, A. J., 180

Coleman, D. H., 187 Ehrensaft, M. K., 169 Garon, S., 43
Coleman, M. A., 76 Eilertsen, D. E., 69 Gassin, E., 322
Coleman, P. T., 135, 231–233, 236, 318 Einarsen, S., 142 Gayle-Hackett, B., 178
Collins, W. A., 38, 39 Eleff, L., 96 Gelles, R. J., 183, 184
Colsman, W., 168 Elliott, R., 289 Gergen, K. J., 185
Comstock, J., 12 Ellis, D. G., 84, 85 Gerzon, M., 55
Cook, J., 355 Ellsworth, P., 195, 201 Gezer, N., 180
Cornell, C. P., 183 el-Sheikh, M., 160 Ghandi, M., 352
Cose, E., 323, 327 Emerson, R. M., 114, 115 Gil, K. M., 39
Coy, P., 198 Emery, C., 187 Gilligan, C., 68, 69
Cozolino, L., 210, 276 Enright, R., 322, 323, 325, 329–331, Gire, J. T., 71
Crocker, J., 43, 83, 84 333, 346 Glass, I., 342
Crohan, S. E., 12, 160 Epstein, D., 320 Goffman, E., 84
Cromer, I. L., 90 Ergeneli, A., 180 Goldberg, R. M., 43, 49, 261
Croucher, S. M., 180 Evans, P., 35, 171 Goldberg, S. B., 301
Cuber, J. F., 237 Exline, J., 336, 338, 341 Goldberger, N., 69
Cupach, W. R., 68, 190 Goldsmith, J., 198
Curhan, J., 263 F Goldstein, J., 235
Curseu, P. L., 14 Faramawy, A. T. E., 180 Gonso, J., 190
Farris, A. M., 11 Gonzalez, A., 165
D Farrugia, C., 184 Goodpaster, G., 313
Dallos, R., 239 Faulker, W., 317 Goodrich, T. J., 69
Darwin, C., 195 Fay, L. F., 238 Gotlib, I. H., 15
Daugherty, S. R., 13 Feeley, T. H., 246 Gottman, J. M., 7, 12, 22, 25–27, 34, 35, 69,
Davidson Honors College, 317 Feeney, J. A., 190 81, 133, 189, 190, 200
Davis, K., 141 Ferrante, D., 290 Gottman, J. S., 12
Deal, J. E., 184 Files, L. A., 259 Gray, B., 175
DeBonis, L., 141 Fincham, F. D., 11 Gray-Little, B., 129
Deci, E. L., 215 Fine, M. A., 76 Greenberger, D., 221
DeDreu, C. K. W., 85 Fischer, A., 212 Greene, K., 187
Demais, A., 180 Fisher, R., 76, 107, 149, 197, 200, 202, 213, Greenwood, M., 299
Denton, R. T., 318 214, 224, 267, 271, 275 Grych, J. H., 11
DeSilvilya, H. S., 215 Fisher-Yoshida, B., 2, 81, 96 Gudykunst, W. B., 71
Deutsch, M., 22, 303, 318 Fitzpatrick, M. A., 11 Guerin, P. J., Jr., 238, 239
DiBlasio, F., 329 Fitzpatrick, S., 142 Guerrero, L. K., 197, 209, 210, 214
DiPaola, B., 199 Flanagan, T. A., 153 Guinote, A., 114
Dobash, R. E., 185 Fletcher, J. K., 54, 115 Gulliver, P. H., 286
Dobash, R. P., 185 Folger, J. P., 84, 85, 88, 119, 287 Gultekin, S., 180
Docherty, J., 43 Follett, M. P., 224, 269, 271, 273, 282 Gunsoy (2015), 73
Doherty, A., 76 Forde, D., 187 Gushee, D., 354
Dollinger, S. J., 160 Forte, P. S., 13
Donohue, W. A., 81, 115, 258, 308 Fowler, J. H., 231 H
Dotton, O., 186 Fowler, M., 237 Hafen, C. A., 39
Doucet, O., 181 Frazer (2010), 67 Haley, J., 112
Douvan, E., 65 Frazer, N. L., 67 Halford, W. K., 184
Downs, K. M., 76 Fredrickson, B. L., 214, 215 Hall, J. A., 161
Dragana, S., 180 Freedman, S., 325 Hamby, S. L., 183
Drake, L., 81, 308 French, J. R. P., Jr., 119, 128 Hamilton, M., 152
Drinkard, D., 338 Frentz, T., 55 Hammer, R., 87
Driscoll, G., 126 Frijda, N. H., 197, 213 Hample, D., 41
Druckman, D., 278 Fuglesang, S. L., 69 Harman, A., 76
Dumlao, R., 11 Fuglestad, P. T., 131 Haroff, P. B., 237
Dunbar, N. E., 109, 110, 114 Funk, J., 289 Harper, G., 84
Dunn, C. W., 11 Harris, L. M., 185
G Harrison, T. R., 293
E Galanes, G., 178 Hart, R. P., 192
Early, A., 197 Galant, S. K., 115 Harter, S., 173
Early, C., 197, 210 Galinsky, A. D., 135, 264 Hartje, J. H., 314
Edelgard, M., 168 Galvin, K. M., 231 Hartley, K. C., 170
Edleson, M., 186 Ganong, L. G., 76 Harvard Negotiation Project, 202,
Edwards, H. T., 268 Garber, R. J., 11 255, 272
Name Index 385
Harvey, J., 320 Johnson, R. T., 21 Kuhn, T., 178

Harwood, J., 74 Joiner, T., 215 Kunkel, A. D., 91
Hathaway, W., 13 Jones, D. C., 11
Hawkins, J. D., 168 Jones, T., 195 L
Haydon, K. C., 39 Jones, T. S., 286, 287, 295, 297 Lagerspetz, K. M. J., 67
Hazy, J., 235 Jordan, J., 68 Lakoff, G., 49
Heen, H., 255 Jordan, J. S., 29 Lammers, J. D., 135
Heen, S., 225, 319, 351 Jordan, J. V., 219 Lamott, A., 352
Heer, D. M., 129 Jordan, W., 197 Lampman, J., 353
Heim, P., 115 Joshi, A., 258 Lange, J. I., 66
Hein, G., 197 Jouriles, E. N., 11, 42 Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., 170
Heitler, S., 41 Jung, C. G., 200 Lannamann, J. W., 185
Henderson, D. A., 185 Lannutti (2015), 211
Herk, N. A., 180 K Larkin (2011), 67
Herzberg, P. Y., 181 Kahneman, D., 86 Larkin, K. T., 67
Hiam, A., 79 Kam, C. C.-S., 74, 187 Lasswell, H. D., 109
Hicks, M. V., 180 Kantek, F., 180 Lau, R. S., 77, 84
Higgins, M. A., 170 Kaplan, J., 68 Laurenceau, J-P., 91
Hill, C. E., 292 Karapinar, P. B., 180 Laursen, B., 39
Hill, M., 325 Katulak, N. A., 206 LaValley, A. G., 197, 214
Hjelt-Back, M., 170 Kautto, J. G., 238 Lawler, E. J., 287
Hocker, J., 153 Keashly, L., 142 Lax, D., 267
Hoffman, L., 231, 234, 239 Keating, D. M., 10 Layton, M., 330, 347
Holloway, S., 106 Keedy, J., 291 Lazare, A., 343, 346
Holmes, J. G., 168 Keene, F., 324 Lazarus, R. S., 196, 197
Holmes, M. E., 286 Kellermann, K., 167 LeBaron, M., 261
Holmgren, M., 334, 337 Kellett, P. M., 232, 233 Lee, I-C., 114
Honeycutt, J. M., 71 Kelley, D., 320, 339, 341 Lenton, R. L., 186
Hong, A. P. C. I., 268 Kelley, H. H., 5 Leonardelli, G. J., 77
Hopson, M. C., 171 Kelly, J., 301 Lerner, G. H., 146
Horn, M. C., 200 Kenkel, W. W., 129 Leung, K., 160
Horvath, C. L., 169 Kerwin, W., 76 Levenson, R. W., 200
Horvath, G. L., 169 Kessler, R. C., 15 Levinger, G., 237
Hotaling, G. T., 184, 186 Khaddouma, A., 12 Lewicki, R. J., 79, 257, 270, 275,
Huang, B., 168 Khakimova, L., 161 277, 286
Huang, J-C., 78 Khan, I., 180 Leymann, H., 142
Hummert, M. L., 74 Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., 12 Lichtenstein, B., 235
Humphrey, J. A., 170 Kilmann, R. H., 180 Lifton, R. J., 317
Hunyh, A., 141 Kim, J., 187 Lin, S-L., 160
Hur, G., 170 Kim, T-H., 160 Lindbergh, A., 56
Hyde, B., 351 Kim, T-Y., 160 Lindner, E. G., 196, 208, 210,
Kim, W., 13 211, 215
I King Arthur, 55 Lipsky, D. B., 260
King, Dr. Martin Luther, Jr., 109, Litterer, J. A., 286
Infante, D. A., 169–171
130, 353 Livingston (2014), 277
Irving, H. H., 313
Kipnis, D., 111, 112, 119, 135 Lizzio, A., 184
Isen, A., 214
Kniskern, D. P., 231 Lord, R., 323
Ivy, D. K., 67
Koerner, A. F., 11 Lovell, J. L., 160
Izard, C. E., 199, 208, 211, 213, 215
Kohlberg, L., 68 Lulofs, R. S., 157, 321
Kohn, A., 268, 269 Luskin, F., 329
J Kolb, D., 13, 284 Lutgen-Sandvik, P., 51, 140,
Jackson, D. D., 77 Kolt, R., 115, 258 142, 170
Jaffee, N., 303 Komarraju, M., 160
Jameson, J. K., 188, 195, 197, 257 Kondo, M., 160 M
Jandt, F. E., 3 Korabik (1993), 69 MacDonald, G., 168
Jaycox, L. H., 11 Kornfield, J., 318 Mace, D. R., 222, 238
Jennings, A. M., 11 Kosterman, R., 168 Magee, J. C., 109
Johnson, A. J., 156, 264 Kozey, R. S., 246 Magner, N. R., 153
Johnson, B., 231 Kressel, K., 291, 299–303 Maiese, M., 215
Johnson, C., 291 Kritek, P. B., 56, 57, 276 Malhotra, D., 263
Johnson, D. W., 21 Krueger, L. M., 171 Malis, R. S., 12
Johnson, M., 49 Kugler, K., 135 Malone, J., 184
386 Name Index
Manstead, A., 212 Murphy, K. A., 170, 171 Paul, M., 24

Manstead, S. R., 197 Murray, J. A., 265, 267, 269, Pearson, J. C., 67, 237
Marano, H. E., 186 272, 282 Peng, A. C., 180
Margolin, G., 11, 12 Mussallam, N., 135 Penn State University, 320
Markey, P. M., 14 Peters, K., 199
Markman, H., 190 N Peterson, B., 201
Marks, M. A., 314 Napier, A., 231 Pierro, A., 111
Marlow (2012), 219 Nasr, Y. A., 180 Pike, G. R., 160, 190
Marshall, L. L., 184 Natalle, E. J., 67 Pitpitanand, E. V., 114
Marshall, N. L., 68 Neale, M. A., 103, 264 Planalp, S., 206, 207
Marsick, V. J., 236 Neff, K., 173, 191 Pleck, J. H., 68
Martin, M. M., 169, 170 Neill, J. R., 231 Poitras, J., 181
Martin, M. W., 318 Neimeyer, G. J., 33 Pondy, L. R., 181
Maurer, N., 119 Neimeyer, R. A., 33 Poole, M. S., 84, 119, 178, 267, 287
May, R., 114, 119, 137 Nelson, N., 268 Popp, N., 309
Mayer, B., 230 Nesse, R. M., 195, 201 Popple, P. R., 265, 286
McCall, M. W., Jr., 128 Neuman, J. H., 142 Porch, D., 197
McCann, R. M., 71 Newman, R. S., 289 Posner, J., 201
McClelland, D. C., 112 Nichols, L. W., 301, 312 Pratto, F., 114
McCorkle, S., 49, 53 Nicholson, J., 11 Pruitt, D. G., 178, 273
McCullough, M. E., 318, 341, 355 Nicolotti, L., 160 Puente, S., 74
McDonald, G. W., 129 Niedenthal, P. M., 213 Pukui, M., 355, 356
McEwan, I., 345 Nijstad, B. A., 85 Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., 237
McFall, L., 323 Noble, C., 295 Putnam, L., 2, 7, 13, 57, 258, 277, 278
McGonagle, K. A., 15 Noller, P., 190 Putnam, L. L., 189, 267, 284, 286, 287
McGuigan, R., 309 Notarius, C., 190
McKay, K., 325 Nudler, O., 43 Q
McLaren, R. M., 11 Nugier, A., 213 Quintilian, 264
McLaughlin, A., 357
McNulty, J., 13 O R
Meinhofer, D., 357 Obbie, M., 337, 349 Rachal, K. C., 341
Mellinger, G. D., 237 Oetzel, J., 180 Rack, C., 261
Menkel-Meadow, C., 314 O’Farrell, T. J., 10 Rafferty, R., 141
Menninger, K., 208 Ohbuchi, K-I., 160 Rahim, M. A., 153
Menz, F., 68 O’Leary, K. D., 184 Raiffa, H., 282
Menzel, K. E., 274 Olekalns, M., 278, 302 Rancer, A. S., 169
Merriam, G., 342 Olsen, B. J., 80 Randeree, K., 180
Merrill, D. M., 13 Olson, D. H., 233 Rands, M., 237
Messman, S. J., 68 Olufowote, J. O., 91 Rantilla, A., 74
Metcoff, J., 249 Oommen, D., 180 Raskauskas, J., 141
Metts, S., 210, 319, 341 Osterman, K., 67, 170 Raush, H. L., 103
Metz, M. E., 70 Ovesen, M. R., 69 Raven, B. H., 111, 114, 119, 128
Mikkelsen, E. G., 142 Oyamot, C. M., Jr., 131 Ray, L., 314
Mikula, G., 206 Ozdemir, A. A., 180 Read, P. B., 211
Miller, G. R., 8 Ozkalp, E., 180 Reagan, R., 342
Miller, J. B., 29, 68, 70 Redden, S. M., 206
Mills, J., 49 P Redding, N., 83
Milton, D. R., 180 Pace, R. C., 287 Redmond, V., 188
Minuchin, S., 231, 234, 239 Padesky, C. A., 221 Reed, G., 323
Mishler, E. G., 129 Palfrey, J., 141 Reeves, T., 217
Mitchinson, A., 135 Palmer, J., 336 Repetti, R. L., 11
Moeller, S. J., 84 Panahon, V., 42 Resnick, G., 21
Moffitt, T. E., 169 Papa, M. J., 67 Richo, D., 30
Moon, S., 246 Papp, P., 231, 236 Riddle, B. L., 169
Moore, C., 263, 300 Parayitam, S., 80 Riskin, L., 217, 275
Morse, C., 341 Pargament, K., 318 Rivers, S. E., 206
Morton, L., 14 Pasold, T., 289 Roberto, A. J., 81, 308
Moyers, B., 317 Patton, B., 225, 255, 271, 319, 351 Robson, S. J., 91
Murayama, A., 72 Pauk, N., 76 Rogan, R. G., 87
Murphy, C. M., 10 Paul, J., 24 Rogers, S. R., 48
Name Index 387
Roloff, M. E., 12, 66, 106, 152, 178, 179, Sillars, A. L., 10, 11, 104, 105, 160, Tippet, K., 353
199, 286, 287, 319 162, 190 Tjosvold, D., 180
Rosen, K. H., 187 Silverstein, O., 231, 236 Tomislav, M. D. C., 180
Rosenbaum, A., 184 Simpson, J., 38, 39 Tomkins, S. S., 211
Rosetto (2015), 211 Singer, T., 197 Tomlinson, E. C., 257
Rosser, B. R. S., 70 Slowe, A. S., 246 Totman, S., 85, 87, 109, 119
Rothman, J., 84 Smart, L., 206 Tracy, S., 170
Rumsfeld, Donald, 342 Smith, D. I., 170, 171 Tracy, S. J., 51, 53, 140, 142
Runde, C. E., 153 Smith, T. A., Jr., 11 Tran, S., 39
Rushing, J. H., 49, 55 Smucny, D., 225 Trubisky, P., 160
Russell, C., 233 Snyder, M., 131 Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Russell, J., 201 Socha, T., 214 of South Africa, 357
Rutter, M., 211 Soliz, J., 91 Tsavoussis, A., 289
Ryals, J., 154 Some, S., 352 Tuchman, B., 303
Ryan, A., 165 Song, F., 197 Tucker, C. M., 11
Speakman, J., 154, 182 Tumlin, S. A., 169
S Sprague, R., 209 Turk, J. L., 129
Sprenkle, D. H., 233 Turner, C. M., 67
Sabourin, T. C., 126, 169, 170
Spring, J. A., 350 Tutu, D., 327, 353
Sacco, D., 141
Stamp, G. H., 12, 65, 126, 133, 170 Tutzauer, F., 106, 178, 286, 287
Sadker, D., 68
Stapel, A., 135 Tuval-Mashiach, R., 258
Sadker, M., 68
Steinberg, M., 8 Tyler, T. R., 312
Safilios-Rothschild, C., 129
Stets, J. E., 185 Tynan, R., 264
Sajjad, M., 180
Stevens, A., 35 Tyree, A., 184
Salami, S., 16
Stewart, J., 320
Salovey, P., 206
Salts, C. J., 11 Stillwell, A., 135, 186 U
Stiver, I., 68 Umbreit, M. S., 270, 304–306, 310
Salvatore, J. E., 38, 39
Stobbe, M., 320 University of Montana, 317
Sander, F. E. A., 314
Stone, D., 225, 255, 319, 351 University of Wisconsin, 322
Sandy, S. V., 15, 16
Strapko, N., 70 Urban, E., 67
Sanford, K., 200, 201
Strauman (2015), 211 Ury, W. L., 76, 107, 271, 275, 309
Sasano, M., 71
Straus, M. A., 183, 187
Satir, V., 55, 232, 234, 239, 241
Scarduzio, J. A., 206 Strzyzewski, K., 12 V
Stuart, R. B., 157 Van de Vliert, E., 292
Schelling, T. C., 5, 267
Stulberg, J., 46 van der Wijst, P. J., 268
Scherer, K. R., 206
Stutman, R. K., 84, 119, 287 Vandello, J., 74
Schuetz, J., 190
Sugarman, A. B., 184, 186 Vander Ven, T., 141
Schwarz, B., 152
Sugarman, D. B., 183 Vangelisti, A. L., 209, 319
Sebenius, J., 267
Sungur, S., 180 VanLear, C. A., 11
Seeber, R. L., 260
Surrey, J., 68 Velez, J., 333
Seibel, R., 119
Shakespeare, W., 351 Velotti (2016), 217
Shakoor, S., 142 T Vera, G., 180
Shapiro (2016), 202, 219, 225, 270, Tafoya, M., 152, 162 Veroff, J., 65
272, 278 Takada, H., 73 Vescio, T. K., 114
Shapiro, D., 149, 196, 197, 202, 214 Tan, J. Y., 114 Vetere, A., 239
Shapiro, D. L., 195 Tannen, D., 67–69 Vickerman, K. A., 11
Shea, B. C., 167 Tarule, J., 69 Victor, D. A., 72
Shearer, H., 13 Tasa, K., 77 Vissing, Y., 169
Sheldon, A., 70 Tatar, M., 14 Vivian, D., 170, 184, 185, 187
Shimanoff, S. B., 248 Tavris, C., 207 Volkema, R. J., 13
Shriner, L., 317 Thomas, K. W., 180, 181 Vos, B., 306
Shriver, D., 322, 328, 349, 351, 353 Thompson, L., 264
Shukri, R., 180 Thompson, L. L., 263 W
Shulman, S., 258 Thompson, R. C., 180 Waldron, V. R., 320, 339
Sieburg, E., 320. See also Stewart, J. Thompson, S. C., 165 Walker, G. B., 264, 284
Siegel, D. J., 276 Thoresen, C., 318 Wall, V. D., Jr., 178
Siegert, J. R., 12, 65, 133 Timmers, M., 212 Wallenfelsz, K., 41
Sierau, S., 181 Ting, S., 165 Walsh, F., 231
Siffert, A., 152 Ting-Toomey, S., 160, 180 Walton, R. E., 291
Siira, K., 235, 266 Tinsley, C. A., 71 Wampler, K. S., 184
388 Name Index
Wang, C., 160 White, J. W., 170 Yarbrough, E. A., 13

Wang, H., 180 Whitson, S. M., 160 Yexley, M., 186
Wang, S. J., 180 Wichman, R., 71 Yorks, L., 236
Watson (1993), 69 Wiesenthal, S., 323 Yoshimura, S., 207, 217, 351
Watson, C., 69, 303 Wigley, C. J., 169, 171 Young-Bruehl, E., 121
Watzlawick, P., 77, 114 Wildflower, L., 295, 297 Young-Eisendrath (1997), 206
Waxler, N. E., 129 Wilhelm (1977), 20 Young-Eisendrath, P., 68, 69, 206
Weathers, M. R., 171 Wilmot, W. W., 12, 13, 32, 69, 153 Yuan, W., 180
Weaver, D. E., 236 Wilmot, W. W., 319 Yun Kim, Y., 71
Weick, K. E., 57, 101 Wilson, K., 184
Weingart, L. R., 30 Wilson, S. R., 71, 91 Z
Welwood, J., 201, 217, 218 Wissler, R. L., 313 Zang, Y., 160
Wertheim, J., 320 Witteborn, S., 320 Zanna, M. P., 168
West, D., 67 Wood, J. T., 67, 68 Zapf, D., 85
Westaby, J. D., 83 Workplace Bullying Institute, 142 Zediker, K., 320
Wheat (2011), 67 Worthington, E. L., 338, 341 Zehr, H., 317, 322
Wheat, A. L., 67 Wotman, S. R., 135, 186 Zhang, Q., 180
Whetten, D. A., 132 Wu, C., 322 Zhang, Y. B., 74, 161
Whitaker, C. A., 231, 249 Wu, P., 180 Zhang, Z-X., 160
White, G., 77 Zietlow, P. H., 160
White, H. R., 168 Y Zogby International, 142
White, J. B., 264 Yagil, D., 215
White, J. J., 268 Yankelovich, D., 25, 27
Subject Index
A Balancing power. See also Constructive power processes of, 89–90
balancing relational goals and, 81
Abuse, and forgiveness, 323–324
active engagement and, 146–147 systemwide patterns of, 235–236
Abusive talk, 169
calm persistence as, 145–146 Communication behavior, 62
Accommodation. See Obliging
empowerment as, 137 power and, 132
Active engagement, 146–147
enlightened conversation, 121–123 Communication breakdown, 54
Ad hominem, 263
high power, 136–137 Communication differences tradition, 67
Adjudication
integrative negotiations and, 277 Communication patterns
introduction to, 312–313
interdependence as, 143–145 coalitions and, 246
limitations of, 314–315
metacommunication as, 147–148 competitive negotiation and, 267–270
positive features of, 313–314
when in low power and, 149–150 integrative negotiation and, 277
Adolescent-parent conflict, 306
Bargaining range, 265 Communication process, forgiveness and, 337
Aggressive/coercive system, 40
Bargaining table metaphor, 55–56 Communication relationship, 114
Agreement, as transformation, 307–308
BATNA (best alternative to negotiated Communication skill, 120, 121
Alcohol, conflict and, 168
agreement), 275 violence and, 187
Alford Plea, 85
Bi-focal vision, 354 Communication triangle, 240
Anger
Binding arbitration, 312 Communication violence, 169
conflict interaction and, 46
Both/and power, 115–116, 125, 132–133 Communication, emotional, 223
culture of honor and, 74
Bridging, 281–282 Communicative act, 62
responsible expression of, 222–223
Brown v. Board of Education 1954, 127 Compassion, 218
Anger-fear sequence, 208
Bullying, 51, 170–171 Compelled apology, 342
Animal behavior metaphor, 53
conflict metaphors and, 51 Competition, 269
Apology
Business mediation, 307 Competitive negotiation
kinds of, 341
assumptions of, 265–267
when offering an, 344 C competitive negotiation and, 267–270
when receiving an, 343
Calm persistence, 145–146 disadvantages of, 269–270
Arbitration, 312
Cathexis, 332 Competitive power, 133
Argumentation, 262–264
Chain reaction, 232 Competitive style. See also Dominating style
Assertive, 164
Change, emotional integrating and, 179
Assumptions, 265–267
conflict and, 225–226 Complementary pattern, 189
Asymmetric power structure, 187
Children Comprehensive assessment guides
Attachment style, 38–39
relational transgressions and, 320 conflict assessment guide as, 252–255
Attack/withdraw pattern, 34
violence and, 185 difficult conversations guide as, 255
Attribution, 62, 63, 65
Circular causality, 232 Compromise, 171–173
Automatic thoughts, 221
Circumplex model of affect, 200–201 Conflict. See also Conflict perspective;
Autonomy, 68
Clarity, 217 Destructive conflict
Avoidance
X-Y-Z formula and, 223 analysis of, 230
communication strategies, 162–163
Coaching definition of, 2–3
criticize loop and, 161–162
for dispute resolution, 295 emotional dimensions of, 195–226
culture and, 160–161
for integrative negotiator as expressed struggle, 3–5
discussion of, 158–160
expanding the pie and, 279–280 face-saving goals and, 84
or engagement, 156–158
labeling the conflict and, 277–278 goal shifting in, 100
Avoidance sequence. See Attack/withdraw
new rituals and, 279 interdependence and, 5–7
pattern
Coalitions, 244–247 in interests and goals, 76
Avoidance spiral
Codependence, 175 interference and, 9–10
attack/withdraw pattern and, 34
Collaborating. See Integrating interpersonal communication and, 2
negative emotion and, 34–35
Collaboration, 40, 132 interpretation of, 82
productive conflict and, 33–34
Collaborative bargaining, 270 metaphors in, 49
retaliation and, 35
Collaborative conflict, 176 negative view of, 44–47
Avoidant system, 40
Collaborative goals, 105–107 opportunities within, 35–36
Avoid/criticize loop, 161–162
Collaborative system, 40 perceived incompatible goals and, 7–8
Avoiding. See Avoidance, communication
Collaborative tactic, 190 perceived scarce resources and, 8–9
strategies; Venting
Collectivistic culture, 71 personal history and, 38–39
Awareness, 217
Communication power and, 109–110
conflict and, 3–5, 45 study of, 16–20
B conflict management and, 2 as system serving, 234–235
Bad habits, 29 denying power and, 112–114 as warlike and violent, 50–51
Balancing act metaphor, 55 interdependence and, 125 at work, 13–15
389
390 Subject Index
Conflict action, harmful dominating as, 163–171 destructive habits examples of, 30
bullying as, 170–171 flexibility and, 190–193 escalatory spirals and, 30–33
explanations for violence and, 186–187 integrating as, 175–180 the four horsemen in, 22–29
patterns of violence and, 185–186 interaction dynamics and, 187–190 in marriage, 10–12
verbal aggressiveness/abuse and, 169–171 introduction to, 152 perceived power and, 133
violence and, 183–184 nature of, 152–153 prevention of, 20–21
Conflict analysis obliging as, 173–175 understanding of, 21–22
comprehensive guides to, 252–255 violence, 183–187 Destructive domination, 168–169
introduction to, 230 Conflict transformation, 202 Destructive habits, 30
macro-level analysis and, 231–239 Conflict triangle, 239–244 Destructive marital conflict, 11
micro-analysis and, 239–251 Conflict-habituated relationship, 237 Devitalized marriage, 237
Conflict Assessment Guide, 252–255 Conflicted relationship, 240 Dialogue, 10
Conflict dynamic, 187 Conformity, 237 Difficult Conversations Guide, 255
Conflict goals, 90–96 Connection to others, 68 Direct communication, forgiveness process
Conflict interaction Constructive complaint, 23 and, 339
face-saving and, 84–85 Constructive conflict, 190–193 Disagreement, and conflict, 45
female/male differences and, 67 argument and, 264 Dispute
perceive specific of, 62–63 being stuck and, 190–191 drivers of, 92
relational goals and, 82 relationships and, 39 emergence of goals in, 90
violence and, 183 TRIP agreements and, 107 power and, 126–127
Conflict management. See also Emotional Constructive power balancing, 131–150 Distressed system power, 125–127
intelligence Contempt, 339 Distributive bargaining, 265–267
clarifying goals and, 103 destructive conflict and, 27–28 Distributive power. See Either/or power
culture and, 73–74 Content goal. See Topic goal Doable goals, 106
face-saving and, 86–87 Conversation, 122, 237 Domestic violence, forgiveness and,
in family relationships, 13 Cooperation, 233–234 323–324
metaphoric solutions and, 59 Core Concerns Framework, 202 Dominance, 29, 276
skill development in, 15–17 discussion of, 272 Dominating style
in the workplace, 13–15 implementation of, 275–276 destructive domination and, 168–169
Conflict metaphor, 49 Cost cutting, 281 discussion of, 163–171
Conflict narrative, 50 Counseling, 298–299 threats and, 165–167
Conflict parties Courage, 219 Downward spiral, 133
balancing power and, 134 Covert expression, of conflict, 33 Drugs, conflict and, 168
goal specialization and, 93–94 Critical start-up, 22–23
interdependence and, 5–7 Criticism, 22 E
sacrificing topic goals and, 101 CTS violence scales, 183 Eddies, 335–336
Conflict patterns, complex Cultural perspectives, 70–74 Either/or power, 115
coalitions as, 244–247 Culture Emotion in conflict
conflict triangles as, 239–244 avoidance and, 160–161 emotional transformation and, 225–226
systemwide patterns as, 235–239 conflict styles and, 180–183 finding feelings and, 203–216
Conflict perspective feelings and emotions in, 203 function in, 199–200
cultural perspectives of, 70–74 gender development and, 68 introduction to, 195–198
metaphors and, 49–60 mediation and, 309–311 metaphors and, 49
narratives frame, 60–62 negotiation and, 260–261 misconceptions of, 198
negative views of, 44–47 Culture of honor, 74 model of, 200–202
perceive specific of, 62–70 Culture, patriarchal violence, 187 power and, 131–132
personal history and, 38–39 zone of effectiveness and, 216–225
positive views of, 47–49 D Emotional dimension, 195
specific history and, 39–43 Dance metaphor, 56 Emotional intelligence, 16
worldview and, 43–44 Dance of Intimacy (Lerner, 1989), 34 Emotional transformation, 225–226
Conflict resolution Danger metaphor, 50 Emotion-behavior pattern, 199
negotiation and, 260–261 Decision to forgive, 329 Empathy, 352–353
quilt making metaphor as, 57 Defensive climate, 25–26 Empowerment
Conflict stages, 238–239 Defensiveness, 24–25 of low-power people, 137
Conflict style Delayed apology, 343 metacommunication and, 147–148
assessment of, 153–155 Descrepant narrative, 186 Engagement, 156
avoid or engage with, 156–158 Descriptive language, 232 Enlightened conversation, 121–123
avoidance as, 158–163 Designated power, 119 Escalatory spiral
cautions about, 180–183 Destructive communication, 87 destructive conflict and, 29–33
compromise as, 171–173 Destructive conflict symmetrical patterns and, 189
constructive conflict and, 190–193 avoidance spirals and, 33–35 Ethnocentric, 71
Subject Index 391
Even playing field, 276 G Influence

Expanding the pie, 279–280 covert, 130
Game metaphor, 54
Expedient apology, 342 personal conflict and, 42–43
Garden metaphor, 56–57
Expertise currency, 120, 123–125 Informal intervention
Gender
Explicit communication, 338 conditions for, 291–293
and conflict behaviors, 68
Explosion metaphor, 52 discussion of, 290–291
issues of, 54
Expressed struggle, 3–5 Injured innocence, 330
perceive specific conflict, 62–70
power perception and, 130 Institution, hierarchical, 324
F stuck conflict styles and, 190–191 Integrating, 175–180
Face-saving goals, 84–89 Gender assumptions, 72–73 Integration, language of, 283–286
retrospective goals and, 101–102 Gender biases, 67–70 Integrative bargaining, 270
Facework goal, 77 Gender difference, 212 Integrative negotiation
Family mediation, 305 Gender issues, 54 assumptions of, 272
Family of origin, 10 Gestures, 338–339 balancing power and, 276
Family relationships, 10–12 Goal clarity, 102–103 coaching for, 277–278
Family schemata, 237 Goal sharing, 102–103 communication patterns and, 267–269
Feeling words, 203–205 Goal shifting, 100 disadvantages of, 282–283
Feelings Goal specialization, 94 introduction to, 270–272
core concerns and, 202 Goal, estimate of the other’s, 104–105 nonspecific compensation and, 280
finding of, 203–205 Goals, 7–8. See also Perceived incompatible Integrative phase, of negotiation,
function of negative emotions and, goal; TRIP 286–287
206–213 change in interaction of, 96–97 Integrative power. See Both/and power
function of positive emotions and, 214–216 changing of, 96–97 Intent, 63
Fight, as verbal conflict, 7 checklist for, 105–107 Interaction dynamics, 187–190
Firm flexibility, 273 clarification of Interaction rules, 248–249
First Big Fight, 12 other’s goals and, 104–105 Interdependence
Flexible options, 29 your goals and, 102–103 conflict and, 5–7
Forgiveness forms of, 94–95 focus on, 143–145
apology and, 341–346 introduction to, 76–77 goals and, 106
conclusion, 357–358 types of, 77 reconciliation and, 352
decision or process of, 329–330 Golden age, 191 Interdependent, 5
definition of, 317–318 Good goals, checklist for, 105–107 Interests, 76–77, 272. See also Goals
dimensions of, 336–338 Gridlocked conflict, 6–7 Interference, 9–10, 76. See also Perceived
gestures and, 338–339 Grieving, forgiveness and, 329 interference
getting stuck and, 335–336 Interfering, 76
interpersonal conflict and, 317 Interlocking behavior, 188–189
H
journey guidepost, 331–335 Internal forgiveness, 336–338
Harassment, 142–143, 170 Interpersonal conflict
memory and, 327–329
Harm, 318–319 avoidance and, 158
misconceptions about, 322–324
Harmony, and conflict, 45 forgiveness and reconciliation in, 317
multicultural example of, 355–357
Heart, as positive metaphor, 217 intrapersonal conflict and, 3
process over decision and, 330–335
Heavy communicator, 247 Interpersonal linkage, 120, 121
switching point of view and, 346–348
Heroic adventure metaphor, 54–55 Interpersonal negotiation
what is to forgive in, 317–322
High power, 113, 135–136 approaches to, 264
Forgiveness, receiving, 346
High verbal aggressiveness, 169 competitive and integrative phases of,
Forgiveness-granting communication, 339
Ho’oponopono, 355–357 286–287
Formal intervention
Holding back, 27 competitive negotiation and, 265
intervention continuum and, 294–295
when outsiders decide and, 311 constructive argumentation and, 262
when parties decide and, 295–311 I culture and, 260
Formal negotiation, 264 I’m right/Are not/Am too, 95 in everyday life, 257
Four horsemen of the apocalypse. See also Identity and relational issues, 92–93 integrative negotiation and, 270–272
Destructive conflict Identity goals, 77, 84–89 language of integration and, 283–286
bad habits and, 29 Identity, finding, 84–85 principled negotiation and, 272–283
contempt and, 27–28 Immune system, hostile behavior and, 12 Interpersonal relationship, goal clarity and,
critical start up and, 22–24 Impact, 63 101–102
defensiveness and, 24–25 Implicit communication, 338 Intervention. See Third-party intervention
destructive conflict and, 21–22, 29 Incompatible goals, 76 Intimate violence, 185
stonewalling and, 26–27 Independence, 68 Intimate-aggressive relationship, 237
supportive climate and, 25–26 Indirect communication skill, 73 Intimate-nonaggressive relationship, 238
Four-strand cable, 353–354 Individualistic culture, 71 Intrapersonal perception, 3
Fractionation, 224–225 Ineffective communication strategy, 117–118 Isolate, 242, 247
392 Subject Index
L Mutual interdependence, 6 Positive approach, to conflict, 47–49

Mutual interest, 5 Positive emotion
Labeling, 233
Core Concerns and, 202
Labels, 277–278
N function of, 214
Language of change, 106
Narrative questions, 278 happiness, serenity, contentment as, 215–216
Language of integration, 283–286
Narrative, of conflict, 43 joy, love, laughter as, 214–215
Letting go, forgiveness and, 329
Natural disaster metaphor, 53 Positive language, 225
Love relationships, 12–13
Negative conflict spiral, 105 Postponement, 163
Low power, 137–138
Negative emotion Power. See also Perceived scarce resource;
strategies for, 143
anger as, 206–208 RICE, power currency and
what to say when, 149–150
disgust, contempt, revulsion as, 213 assessing relational power and, 127–131
M fear and anxiety as, 208 balancing constructively, 131–150
function of, 206 bases of, 118–127
Macro-level analysis
hurt as, 209–210 currencies of, 118–119
complex conflict patterns and, 235–239
sadness and depression as, 211–212 definition of, 109–110
systems theory and, 231–235
shame, guilt, regret as, 213–214 face-saving and, 87
Marriage, avoidance and, 158–160
Negative goals, 100–101 masculine theory of, 115
Masculine theory of power, 115
Negative view, of conflict, 44–47 orientations to, 110–114
Meanings, 62–63
Negotiated compromise, 264 perceived scarce resources and, 8–9
Mediation
Negotiation relational theory of, 114–115
advantages of, 300–301
competitive phase of, 286–287 Power balancing constructive, 131–150
agreement or transformation and, 307–308
interpersonal, 257 Power currencies
culture and, 309–311
as topic goal, 79 communication skills and, 121
Nonabusive talk, 169 definitions of, 118–119
limitations to, 303
Nonbinding arbitration, 312 expertise and, 123
process and skills of, 308–309
Nonintimate-aggressive relationship, 237 interpersonal linkages and, 121
settings for, 303–306
Nonintimate-nonaggressive relationship, 238 resource control and, 120–121
victim-offender restitution and, 306–307
Nonresistance, 130 Power denial, 112–114
Memory, forgiveness/reconciliation and,
Nonspecific compensation, 280–282 Power imbalance
327–329
high power and, 135–136
Mental health, 10
Mess metaphor, 53
O introduction to, 131–132
Obliging, 173–175 forgiveness/reconciliation and, 324–327
Metacommunication, 147–148
Obsession, 330 low power and, 137–138
Metaphor
different images of, 57 Opportunity, from conflict, 35–36 Power over style. See Dominating style
insights from, 49 Organization, systems theory and, 231 Power-dependence relations, 144
learning and listening from, 60 Overt expression, of conflict, 33 Powerlessness, 137
reflecting danger, 53 Predicament of irreversibility, 328
as animal behavior, 53 P Prevention, of conflict, 20–21. See also
as balancing act, 55 Parental conflict, 11 Destructive conflict
as bargaining table, 55–56 Passive aggressive behavior, 130–131 Primacy, overlapping interests/goals and, 91
as bullying, 51 Passive-congenial relationship, 237 Principled negotiation, elements of, 272–283
as communication breakdown, 54 Pathway, of social relationship, 39 Process, 329
as dance, 56 Patterning, 231 Process goals, 77, 89–90
as explosion, 52 Perceive specific conflict Promise, 166
as game, 54 don’t believe what you see, 63–64 Prospective goals, 97–98
as garden, 56–57 filter identification of, 64–66 Public apology, 342–343
as heroic adventure, 54–55 gender biases and, 67–70 Pursue/flee pattern, 34
as mess, 53 identifying filters of, 64–66
as musical improvisation, 57 Perceived incompatible goal, 7–8 Q
as quilt making, 57 Perceived interference, 10, 290. See also Quilt making metaphor, as conflict
as tide, 56 Interference resolution, 57
as trial, 52–53 Perceived scarce resource, 8–9
as warlike conflict, 50–51 Perception, 2–3
as wild act of nature, 53 of power, 128 R
Micro-level analysis Personal conflict, other’s goals and, 105 Rapist style, 170
interaction rules and, 248–249 Personal history, 38–39 Reactive behavior, 104
microevents and, 249–251 Personal pathology, 45 Realistic goal. See Topic goal
Mid-range (of intensity) Personal power, 114 Receive forgiveness, 343, 346
mindfulness, 217–222 Phases of negotiation, 286–287 Reciprocity, destructive conflict and, 34–35
verbal abuse and, 224 Physical aggression, 185 Reconciliation
Morphogenesis, 233 Position power. See Designated power history, politics, literature and, 349
Musical improvisation metaphor, 57 Positions, negotiation and, 272 interdependence and, 353–355
Subject Index 393
interpersonal conflict and, 317 Shuttle diplomacy, 307 relational goals and, 80–83
introduction to, 348–349 Siding, 292 topic goals and, 78–80
misconceptions of, 324 Skill development, conflict management and, types of goals and, 77
strand of empathy and, 352–353 15–20 TRIP agreements, 107
strand of forbearance and, 351–352 Social learning theory, 68 TRIP concerns
strand of truth and, 349–351 Social relationship, power and, 114 argumentation and, 262–264
Reframing, 277 Sociopath, 133 negotiations and, 257
Relational goal, 77, 80–83 Solutions, goal clarity and, 102
Relational power, 114–118, 127–131 Source of threat, 165–167 U
Relational suicide, 166 Spiral of negativity, 32 Unfair bonding, 292
Relational theory of power, 114–118 Stonewalling, 26–27 Unmanaged incivility, 170
Relational translation, 83 Stories, 218 Unresolved conflict, 16
Relational variables, 188 Story questions, 278
Relational-Cultural Model, 219 Strand of empathy, 352–353 V
Relationship Strand of forbearance, 351–352
Vague goals, 103
conflict avoidance and, 157 Strand of truth, 349–351
Venting, 217
conflict style and, 182, 189–190 Strategic conflict, interdependence and, 5–7
Verbal abuse, 169–171
goals in, 76, 80–82 Struggle, expressed, 3–5
protection from, 224
harm in, 320 Stuck in a style, 190–193
Verbal aggressiveness, 169–171, 185
high power and, 136 Style preference, 152
Victim of abuse, 185–186
history, 182 Subordination, 29
Victim-Offender Restitution (VOR), 306
power currency and, 118 Substantive goal. See Topic goal
Vindication, 322
threats in, 167 Support, 25–26
Violence
violence in, 186–187 Supportive climate, 25–26
explanations for, 186–187
Remorse, 351 Surrogate apology, 343
Resource, 8. See also Perceived scarce Symmetrical sequence, 189–190
patterns of, 185–186
resource System dynamics, 230
personal history and, 42
Resource control, 120–121 System isolates, 246
Violent relationship, 35
Resource, power measurement and, 128 System rules, 248–249
Vital relationship, 237
Responsible expression of anger, 222 System styles, 238
Vulnerability, 208
Restraint, 136–137 System theory, 231–235
Retaliation, 351 Systemwide pattern, 235–239
W
destructive conflicts and, 35
Retrospective goal, 101–102 T Warning, 166
Rhetorical sensitivity, 192 Warrior of the heart
Tension of opposites, 201
RICE active listening for emotional communication
Therapy, forgiveness and, 324–325
communication skills and, 121 and, 223
Third force, 309
expertise and, 123 protect from verbal abuse and, 224
Third-party intervention
interpersonal linkages and, 121 responsible expression of anger and,
advantages of, 290
power currency and, 118–119 222–223
formal intervention and, 294–315
resource control and, 120–121 use fractionation and, 224–225
informal help and, 291–294
Rights, 127 use positive language and, 225
need for, 289–290
Ritual, 237, 279 X-Y-Z formula and, 223
Threat, 165–167
Rules for conflict, 234 zone of effectiveness and, 216–217
Three-step model of forgiveness, 330
Rules of communication, 248 Wholeness, 231
Tide metaphor, 56
Win/lose perspective, 264, 270
Topic goal, 78–80
S Women
Topic-only solutions, 93
both/and power and, 115
Scarcity of resource, 290 Total marriage, 237
violence and, 185
School Toxic triangle, 241–244
Workplace
bullying in, 183 Trade-offs, 280–281
coalitions in, 245–246
mediation program in, 305 Transactive goals, 98–101
history in, 39
Secondary wound, 327 Transcendence, 331
nature of conflict and, 13–15
Self-esteem Transcendent, 133
Workplace bullying, 170–171
gender influence and, 68–70 Transformation
Worldview, 43–44
identity goals and, 84 mediation and, 307–308
perceived scarce resources and, 8–9 Trial metaphor, 52–53
X
Self-forgiveness, 331, 347 Triangles, 234
Self-fulfilling prophecy, 230 TRIP (topic, relational, identity, process) X-Y-Z formula, 223
Self-image, loss of face and, 87 identity goals and, 84–89
Self-in-relationship, 69 mediation and, 305 Z
Self-report, 180–181 overlapping goals of, 90–96 Zone of effectiveness. See Mid-range
Sexual assault, 142–143 process goals and, 89–90 (of intensity)

Interpersonal Conflict 10th - PDF Ebook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interpersonal Conflict 10th - PDF Ebook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interpersonal Conflict 10th - PDF Ebook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interpersonal

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Brand Manager: Jamie Laferrera

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Hocker, Joyce L., author. | Wilmot, William W., author.

Part ONE Conflict Components 1

Chapter 1 The Nature of Conflict 2

Chapter 2 Perspectives on Conflict 38

Chapter 3 Interests and Goals 76

Chapter 4 Power: The Structure of Conflict 109

Chapter 5 Conflict Styles 152

Chapter 6 Emotions in Conflict 195

Part TWO Special Applications 229

Chapter 7 Analyzing Conflicts 230

Chapter 8 Interpersonal Negotiation 257

Chapter 9 Third-Party Intervention 289

Chapter 10 The Practice of Forgiveness and

Part ONE Conflict Components 1

Chapter 1 The Nature of Conflict 2

Chapter 2 Perspectives on Conflict 38

How Do You Perceive Specific Conflict? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Chapter 3 Interests and Goals 76

Chapter 4 Power: The Structure of Conflict 109

Balancing Power Constructively. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Chapter 5 Conflict Styles 152

Chapter 6 Emotions in Conflict 195

A Model of Emotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Part TWO Special Applications 229

Chapter 7 Analyzing Conflicts 230

Chapter 8 Interpersonal Negotiation 257

Seven Elements of Principled Negotiation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

Chapter 9 Third-Party Intervention 289

Chapter 10 The Practice of Forgiveness

Final Thoughts on Apology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

To the reader from Gary Hawk

73% of instructors who use

More students earn A’s and

Over 8 billion questions have been

Interpersonal Conflict Depends on Interpersonal

Application 1.1 My Intrapersonal Conflicts

Conflict is present when every person’s perception of the struggle is communicated.

when there are communicative manifestations of these perceptions will an “interpersonal

∙ Communication behavior often creates conflict.

Perceived Incompatible Goals

Perceived Scarce Resources

Why Study Conflict?

∙ As an employee, you can learn how to get along with

The Importance of Skill Development

Application 1.2.1 Jon and His Mother

The following dialogue may be familiar to you in tone, if not in content:

Application 1.2.1 Jon and His Mother

Application 1.3 My Basic Approach to Conflict

Preventing Destructive Conflict

The Rescue Crew: A Fable

The Rescue Crew: A Fable

Understanding Destructive Conflict

The Four Horsemen

Figure 1.1 The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

• Use an “I” statement.