Though seldom pleasant, conflict is a normal and healthy part of relationships. Even in the best of marriages partners will view some situations differently and will have competing wants and needs that cannot be met simultaneously. These are times when the partners must choose between their own self-interests, those of their partners, and the common good of the relationship. These instances present opportunities for the partners to assert their independence or to affirm their commitment to their relationship. On the one hand, we declare our individuality, a primary component of our identity, by differing with significant people in our lives on matters of consequence. On the other hand, we demonstrate our commitment and caring by deferring our own wishes for the benefit of our partners. In the long run healthy conflict resolution provides a balance which allows the partners to develop and maintain a vital, committed relationship while still expressing their individual identities.

When conflict is avoided, both individuality and relationship are jeopardized. When we forfeit our own needs, feelings, values and opinions in order to avoid disagreement, we diminish ourselves and eventually have less to offer to the relationship. If we make disproportionate concessions to our partners, then over time we become resentful over the inequality and less willing to cooperate. When both parties surrender their individualities to their mutual interests, the relationship gets reduced to only those activities and involvements they agree upon. Without the influx of varied and different interests and concerns, the relationship lacks the stimulation required to maintain its vitality. On the other hand, if neither party is willing to defer his or her own wishes for the other, then the relationship has little glue to hold it together. It should be apparent that a healthy relationship requires a balance of cooperation and individuality and of give and take from its partners for its viability. Conflict resolution is the vehicle by which we establish and maintain this balance.

Even when the partners are in general agreement over the balance of individual and mutual pursuits, the individual interpersonal conflicts are usually distressing, as they inevitably involve some combination of frustration, anger, alienation, self-doubt, internal conflict, and apprehension. Frustration simply involves not getting what you want when you want it – without this element conflict would simply be a difference of opinion with no practical consequences to those involved. When we see our partner as intentionally thwarting our wishes, this frustration often translates into anger at our partner. When conflict is with someone close, the opposition may create an uncomfortable distance and a sense of alienation from the other. If you depend on your partner’s affirmation for your sense of self-worth, conflict with your partner may also threaten your self-esteem. Interpersonal conflict also produces internal conflict in its participants: our own wishes are often countered by our concern for our partners or the fear of our partner’s disapproval, rejection, or retaliation. The time it takes to work out the internal and interpersonal conflicts causes a delay in fulfilling one’s wishes, which presents a further source of frustration and an opportunity to worry about the possible outcomes of the conflict, whether that might be our partner’s disapproval, the thwarting of our plans, or some other consequence.

Safety and Respect – Prerequisites For Conflict Resolution

With these various distresses, working out conflicts requires two fundamental conditions – safety and respect. Resolution requires free choice by both parties, which can only be achieved in an atmosphere of safety. Security involves freedom from the risk not only of physical harm, but also of violation of one’s personal rights and freedom. Threats are particularly intimidating when there has been a history of previous aggression and personal violations. Achieving a partner’s capitulation through intimidation only suppresses conflict, rather than resolves it. Though it may achieve a short-term victory in winning a conflict, it leads to the long-term deterioration of trust, caring and cooperation in the relationship.

The second prerequisite for resolving conflicts is respect – both for one’s partner and for oneself. We accord respect for both our partners and ourselves when we recognize that we both can hold legitimate opinions and positions, even though based on different values, assumptions, and individual needs. We acknowledge that none of us has exclusive access to the standards by which to judge others – even if we assume that such absolute standards exist. This allows us to accept our differences without assuming that one is right and the other wrong, one good and the other bad, one true and the other false. In respecting the other we do not attempt to redefine the other’s thoughts, feelings and values. When we disagree in our opinions, we keep an open mind, recognizing that we do not have all the answers and demonstrating a willingness to learn from our partners. Since we honor our partners’ right to free choice, we do not attempt control or manipulation. With self-respect we accord ourselves the same respect that we give to others, and we expect that same respect from others as well. Self-respect also involves the responsibility for asserting our rights.

The Plight of the “Fight or Flight” Response

While hazardous enough itself, conflict gets further complicated by our “fight or flight” response to stress – and conflict can be quite stressful. We have a biological programming to respond to emergency situations which mobilizes us either to flee dangerous situations or to combat threatening forces. While appropriate for some situations, this intense reaction is counterproductive to partners who are attempting to work out their conflicts. The fight response involves an attempt to overcome one’s adversary – when enacted in conflict it is an attempt to dominate and control the other. At the very least this reaction is incompatible with the problem-solving and compromising that conflict resolution usually requires. Our stress gets experienced as anger at our partner, whom we see as obstructing our well-being, whether willfully or through negligence. At worst, the fight response may lead to a mutual escalation of hostilities that results in physical violence. In the flight response we attempt to avoid conflict either by ignoring it or by submitting to our partner’s wishes. The predominant feelings are fear and anxiety, whether for our own security or of losing our partner’s love. Our accommodation to our partner generally entails a diminishing of the self and a covert resentment of our partner. It often encourages others to take us for granted or to take advantage of our acquiescence.

Neither fight nor flight is adaptive for conflict, for both violate the respect required to sustain a committed relationship. The aggression of the fight response dominates without respecting the rights of one’s partner, while the submission of the flight response violates self-respect. In order for conflict to be constructive, some tempering of the fight or flight responses is necessary. Assertiveness involves the active advocacy of one’s needs and wants, as does aggression, yet it also respects the rights and dignity of one’s partner. A strategic retreat may be called for if conflict gets too intense, yet this flight is only temporary, until both parties are ready to return to the bargaining table. Thus, either partner should have the right to call a time-out if the atmosphere does not feel safe. This time can be used to cool down and to sort out one’s thoughts and feelings regarding the conflict, which can be difficult to do in the middle of an argument.

Communication – The Road to Conflict Resolution

Effective communication is essential to conflict resolution. We can examine this in terms of three basic components: active listening, self-expression, and negotiation. This approach is based on the assumption that both you and your partner have positions that make sense from your respective points-of-view. Active listening not only demonstrates your respect for your partner’s position, but it also encourages your partner to do likewise with you. Self-expression involves articulating your viewpoint and expectations. Verbalization of the perspectives and expectations of both partners sets the stage for negotiation and resolution of the conflict. These three functions will alternate during the course of working out a conflict, with negotiation generally following the other two processes.

Active Listening

Active listening involves our not only hearing our partners out, but also letting our partners know that we are hearing what they have to say. This can be expressed in a number of ways. Body language can be an important signal, with eye contact, leaning forward, and occasional head nods indicating that we are paying close attention. A simple “un-huh” now and then and paraphrasing what our partners say also communicates that we are listening. Seeking clarification and asking questions can also show that we are interested and concerned about our partners’ points-of-view. These can be helpful techniques, but they are only effective when they are genuine and accompany an attitude of respect, interest, and understanding for our partners.

Attending to our partners’ feelings is also important, since it demonstrates that we are interested not only in the issue at hand, but also in our partners’ well-being. Conflicts are frequently as much about the lack of understanding, acceptance and respect in the relationship as about the particular issue at hand. Showing these attitudes through active listening may help resolve relationship concerns that lie behind a particular demand, complaint, or request. Reaffirming our concern and acceptance for our partners is especially important when we have major differences. It can be especially difficult to listen to our partners’ anger. Often the initial reaction is to get defensive or to counterattack (e.g., “but you do . . .”). These reactions interpret our partners’ anger from our own point-of-view, as a personal attack. This approach usually come across as an attempt to invalidate our partners’ feelings and often leads to an escalation of charges and countercharges. A more effective approach is to try to understand our partners’ anger from their perspectives, wherein anger is a natural reaction to feeling frustrated, thwarted, or threatened by another. Acknowledging the anger doesn’t mean that we endorse our partners’ positions – it simply indicates that we recognize that the anger makes sense from their perspective. This approach can help to diffuse our partners’ anger and thereby help to attain a more collaborative approach.

Self-Expression

Self-expression is the complement to active listening, wherein we express and clarify our positions to our partners. Here it is important not to assume our partners know our thoughts, feelings and needs. While we might escape an outright refusal of a direct request or feel self-righteously indignant over our partner’s neglect, the net result is that we are less likely to get what we want if we don’t ask. There may be several aspects of our position to state, and attention to each one can help to convey our overall positions more effectively. These basically involve how we view the problem, how it affects us, and what we want from our partners.

There Is a definite art to expressing the problem effectively, so that our partners understand our concerns and are willing to consider accommodating to them. It is particularly helpful to define the problem in specific terms. This can involve specifying our partners’ problematic behaviors or the consequences of them (e.g., “You leave your clothes throughout the house,” or “The  house is too messy.”). Addressing the problem in terms of your partner’s personality traits (e.g., “You’re a lazy slob.”) is likely to provoke defensiveness and counterattack. It also is helpful to emphasize your own needs or inconveniences in defining the problem, rather than putting too much stress on your partner’s faults or shortcomings. The latter approach is likely to come across as blaming or attacking, which usually provokes defensiveness. It is also helpful to stick to the problem at hand rather than bringing in other complaints: keep the discussion focused on the current issue, rather than digging up the past.  Though it is tempting to bring in more data to build your case, this approach usually causes the defense to build its case, rather than attending to your perspective.  While it may be tempting to try to resolve a lot of differences all at once by putting them all under one heading, this approach can make the conflict seem overwhelming and discourage dialogue. It is generally better to tackle the conflicts one battle at a time, rather than take on the war.

A second aspect to self-expression is describing how the problem affects you – an important step for letting your partner know that the problem is a significant concern for you. As with the counterpart in active listening, you give your partner the opportunity to attend to you personally, rather than simply focusing on the overt problem at hand. One important aspect in communicating feelings is owning responsibility for them. Note the difference between saying, “I feel angry when you . . ,” and “You make me so angry.” And of course, saying “See what you made me do!” refutes our responsibility for our own actions. We may hold our partners accountable for their actions, but not for how we react to them – that’s our responsibility. Furthermore, emphasizing our feelings and needs rather than our partners’ shortcomings decreases the tone of blame and lessens the chances of our partners’ defensiveness. For these reasons articles on assertiveness often recommend use of “I”-statements to present our positions in a manner that can be more easily heard.

As with listening to our partners, expression of anger can make it more difficult for our partners to listen to our perspectives on the problems. We can often improve our effectiveness by recognizing that our reactions to problems usually involve a mixture of anger and hurt. When we emphasize the anger to the exclusion of the pain, we are more likely to get defensiveness and counter-attack in response. By also disclosing our pain we are allowing our partners the opportunity to feel compassion for us. Focusing only on the pain, however, may prevent us from mobilizing sufficient anger to assert our expectations. Without a dose of anger, our complaints may come across as whining or self-pity. A healthy balance between expressions of hurt and anger can be more effective in achieving a satisfactory resolution to our conflicts. This mixture is difficult for some personality types. Staunch individualists often view expression of hurt and sadness as a weakness and therefore emphasize their anger. The so-called “co-dependents” fear alienating their partners and feel selfish and bad for expressing their anger, so they primarily show their pain and suffering. Finding a balance does not mean inventing feelings that aren’t there, but it does mean reclaiming feelings we may have disowned when we’ve heard messages such as “Big boys don’t cry” and “What makes you think you’re so special that you deserve that?” Recovering these facets of ourselves not only improves our assertiveness, but also helps to round out our personalities.

A third aspect of communication is asserting what we want from our partners. As with defining the problem, it is helpful to be specific and to request changes in behavior rather than in attitudes or traits – it is fair to ask our partners to change their actions for our benefit, but not to expect a change in personality (i.e., into someone different). Specificity of the what, when, and where helps to hold our partners accountable for the concessions they make, rather than doing it “tomorrow” or “when I have time.” Keeping requests simple and one thing at a time is more likely to produce compliance.

Negotiation and Resolution

Once both we and our partners have had the opportunity to express our viewpoints, we can work at resolving our differences and reaching a conclusion. We may be able to clarify our positions and clear up misunderstandings. We may voice disagreement with one another’s position and present our own rationales, as long as the challenges still respect each other. This involves recognizing that we both may have internally consistent and legitimate viewpoints based on different values, assumptions, or individual needs. It is important to remember that this is not a courtroom battle to determine right vs. wrong or guilt vs. innocence, but a negotiation to work out a mutually agreeable solution. While achieving agreement on the problem is optimal, it is not essential: we can reach agreement on how to handle a problem without agreeing on all aspects of it.

One element of negotiating a solution to a conflict is bargaining. This may involve indicating the consequences of our partners’ compliance or noncompliance with our requests. Offering a reward for compliance tends to work better than threatening punishment for noncompliance. It is also important to be alert to the risk of coercion, which conveys a lack of respect for our partners’ right to free choice. Bribery, blackmail, extortion, and threats are all mechanisms of control rather than free bargaining. It is at times a fine line between offering an incentive and making a threat or a bribe – and a blurry line at that. One guideline is to propose the natural consequences of their actions on us: offering what we are willing and withholding what we don’t feel like giving. Another is to make the incentive proportionate to the action: the punishment should fit the crime, and the reward fit the good deed. Other guidelines have a more strategic value: we shouldn’t offer or threaten a consequence that we are not willing to carry out, or else we erode our credibility; and we shouldn’t offer a reward that we want more than our partners or threaten a punishment that hurts us worse, or we’ll end up giving in sooner than our partners.

There are a number of possible outcomes to conflict. Problem-solving is a mode of conflict resolution in which the couple works out a solution that satisfies almost all the wants and needs of both parties. Another possibility is compromise, in which both get some of what they want, but make concessions in order to achieve it. Both these instances are the so-called “win-win” situations. A third option is a one-sided win, wherein one partner gets his or her way at the expense or inconvenience of the other – a victory that may bear some cost in terms of animosity or resentment from the partner. Even this might be an acceptable outcome, but only if there is an overall balance of give and take throughout the relationship and a basic commitment to it by both partners.

Summary

The article presents the view of conflict as a healthy aspect of relationships that serves to maintain a dynamic balance between individuality and commitment to the relationship. Assertiveness, the active advocacy of one’s own needs and wants while respecting the rights and dignity of the other, is presented as the appropriate stance for both partners in a conflict. Various guidelines have been offered for effective conflict resolution in the context of active listening, self-expression, and negotiation phases of the process. If these guidelines are followed mechanically or used to manipulate one’s partner, they will be of little help. When they are used to foster an atmosphere of mutual respect and safety, they not only facilitate conflict resolution, but also serve to deepen the relationship through enhanced emotional intimacy.

BOB DANIEL, Ph.D., is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist in private practice at Tidewater Psychotherapy Services in Virginia Beach.

[whohit]dealing with conflict: the art of assertiveness[/whohit]