Interpersonal Conflict Strategies

An earlier post, Dealing with Conflict in Relationships: The Art of Assertiveness, affirmed that interpersonal conflict is a normal and healthy aspect of relationships. It proposed conflict a means through which we maintain a dynamic balance between our own self-interest and the well-being of our partners. While it noted self-expression, active listening, and negotiation as three basic components of conflict resolution, it did not identify particular strategies that one might adopt in this process. The below table outlines eight such strategies. This list is not etched in stone, such that others may come up with a different number of strategies, and different strategies entirely.  Much is simply a matter of personal preference as to how to cut up the pie, with the primary criterion of the “truth” of these concepts lying in their usefulness.

Interpersonal Conflict Strategies, Pro’s and Con’s

[ezcol_1third]Style[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]Advantages[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]Drawbacks[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]Avoidance – ignoring and refusing to deal with the conflict[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]Strategic retreat, regaining perspective, and preventing the worsening of hostilities[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]Conflicts, problems and stress accumulate, others get their way by default, and loss of respect from others[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]Accommodation – giving in, submitting, capitulating[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]Admitting when wrong, conceding when defeated and when one’s adversary has the leverage[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]Getting less of what one wants, being seen as weak, getting taken for granted, getting taken advantage of[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]Competition – trying to win the best deal one can get[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]Getting the best deal one can get, expressing one’s sense of self-worth[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]Putting self-interest ahead of the relationship, with the risk of weakening it[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]Confrontation – standing one’s ground, claiming to be in the right, declaring one’s adversary wrong[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]Standing up for one’s principles and values, clarifying differences in perspectives[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]Alienating others, appearing self-righteous and dogmatic, threatening the relationship, blaming  and judging others as inferior, wrong, immoral, etc.[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]Coercion – being “heavy-handed” with applying leverage, using threats, and perhaps blackmail or extortion[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]Getting your way, at least on the particular issue at hand[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]Deterioration of the relationship, eroding of trust and good faith[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]Provocation – escalation of tensions by inflaming the anger of the other[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]Temporary relief of tension by venting anger, obtaining leverage by getting the other to lose control and act impulsively[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]Usually an escalation of tension, with a greater chance of violence, deterioration of trust and respect, major damage to the relationship[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]Compromise – negotiation for a 50 – 50 solution, meeting in the middle[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]Give and take, balance of self-interest and care for the other, demonstrating commitment to the relationship by showing willingness to make sacrifices[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]Compromising of ideals, principles, and integrity, not getting the best deal available[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]Collaboration – Cooperating and working together for both sides to get more of what both want, despite differences[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]Maximizing gains for both sides, attaining “win-win” solutions (e.g., a 70-70 or an 80-70 solution, rather than just a 50-50 compromise), strengthening the relationship[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]Same as compromise, plus lending credibility to a position antithetical to one’s values, ethics, and principles[/ezcol_1third_end]

Note that the table lists both advantages and drawbacks for each of the eight interpersonal conflict strategies. That does not mean that they are equally helpful, as certain ones, such as compromise and collaboration, are typically more productive, particularly in the context of an ongoing relationship. The effectiveness of a particular conflict strategy often depends upon the particular situation in which it is used: sometimes you need a saw, and other times you need a hammer.

 

Our Social Roles – Which Are Yours?

How often do you stop to reflect on your place in the world and the social roles you play out on this stage? If you are like most, it’s not that often. You may follow the adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” This approach is in direct contrast to the Socratic dictum that “the unexamined life is not worth living” and his admonition to “know thyself.” Here, we find an example of contradictory advice, which I propose is a direct result of our living in a paradoxical world. As we discover in other writings on this site, we don’t need to be paralyzed by such situations. Instead, we can adopt a middle ground between the two opposing positions, in exploring not only how these social roles limit us, but also considering other available options.

Getting to Know Thyself

In  exploring our usual styles of relating to others, it is important to remember that we are not the roles that we assume, even if we play them rather frequently or habitually. We may find that we alternate between various roles according to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Still, we do “volunteer” for certain roles because they fulfill our particular wants and needs. Many of these roles evolve out of how we resolve various paradoxes of life for ourselves (e.g., order vs. freedom, belonging vs. individuality, security vs. excitement, being vs. becoming, and using vs. relating). It is quite unlikely that we have come to a deliberate choice out of our contemplating these paradoxes and the meaning of life. Rather, the resolution is usually implied in how we interact with others. And even if these roles were a product of conscious choice, we have likely practiced them sufficiently that they have become a matter of habit, with our no longer being aware of them. They then operate as implicit assumptions, acting behind the scenes to guide our interactions with others. As long as these assumptions go unstated, they are quite difficult to challenge. Only when we identify them, do we consider that there are other options. Tagging these “ways of being in the world” with labels gives us the focus to assess their usefulness and to consider other available options.

Social Roles – How to Define Them?

There is nothing magical or absolute about the labels and definitions for these social roles. It is more a matter of creating them, rather than discovering them. Just as we can cut a cake into different numbers of pieces of different shapes and sizes, so too can we construct the various roles from the array of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that we experience and express. Even with this arbitrary quality, these labels provide useful “handles” for understanding ourselves. You will find that various therapists, counselors, life coaches, and self-anointed gurus differ widely in labeling and defining the common personality styles and roles. This is not haphazard. Rather, these categories are outgrowths of their perspectives on life. So, too, is it with my outlook. In particular, I make note of the differing styles we adopt and practice in wading through the “messiness” of living in a paradoxical universe. Furthermore, these roles do not occur in isolation – rather, they get expressed in our social relations. These habitual roles interact with others’ styles, often resulting in getting stuck in frustrating relationship patterns, which I have addressed as vicious cycles. Having labels and descriptions for these can help one escape from such ruts. While these labels can be a quite useful shorthand to describe common patterns, we should keep in mind that they are not things in and of themselves. Here, we want to keep in mind Alfred Korzybski’s adage, “Don’t confuse the map with the territory.”

Social Roles as Styles of Dealing with Life’s Paradoxes

In this approach, we will be defining our social roles in functional terms, according to the particular purpose toward which we are applying them. First, we define these roles according to varying tendencies for resolving life’s paradoxes: Do we seek out order and predictability, or do we reserve the freedom of keeping our options open? Do we prefer comfort and security, or do we pursue adventure and excitement? Do we live in the moment, appreciating things as they are, or do we focus on pursuing goals for improvement and fulfilling a purpose? Do we approach life and relationships in a practical sense of working together to achieve specific goals, or do we focus on relating to one another on a deeper emotional level? Do we collaborate openly with others by “laying one’s cards face up on the table,” or do we pursue our private agenda in “keeping our cards close to our vest”? Do we seek out a sense of belonging with others, or do we pursue our unique identity, “marching to the beat of a different drummer”? All of these questions tap into the paradoxes of life, for which there are no “one-size-fits-all” answers. Of course, these dualities are not forced choices between two extremes, but are two ends of a continuum, with the more adaptive approaches lying somewhere in the middle, as I discussed in my article, Muddling down a Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life.

Getting Stuck in Vicious Cycle Roles

These paradoxes that shape our lives are no mere matter of philosophical debate. They get played out on the social stage on a daily basis. We find others to play out the scenes with roles that complement our own – though often not in a good way. Over time, these patterns become habitual, with little thought given to them, and even less consideration to what we can do differently. Thus, we get stuck in ruts which often bring out the worst in us, as I have discussed in my article, Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships 2.0.

drama-triangle

Other posts involve exploring specific roles that have evolved out of my study of styles of resolving paradoxes and how these styles interact in vicious cycle patterns. Two such posts, Escaping the Victim Role and Caretaker Burnout and Compassion Fatigue, discuss specific unhealthy roles in vicious cycles and provide suggestions for breaking free from them. Future posts are in the works for transcending the Oppressor and the Rebel roles. Note that the goal of such projects is not to eliminate these roles, but to modify them to  healthier versions. By offering adaptive solutions to problems and conflicts, the constructive versions allow us to venture beyond the vicious cycles and move on to other activities and social roles. The strategies and techniques specific to each social role supplement the more general tips given for escaping vicious cycle patterns, which were outlined in the Vicious Cycle article noted above.

Clusters of Related Social Roles

As I noted before, there is nothing absolute about these patterns, and thus we might look at clusters of patterns that function in much the same manner in vicious cycles. One such grouping, which I label the Oppressor cluster, encompasses the Critic, Perfectionist, Snoop, Bully, and Authoritarian roles. These represent variations on the Persecutor role identified by Steven Karpman, cited in the book, Games Alcoholics Play, by Claude Steiner. Another grouping, which I refer to as the Victim cluster, encompasses the Victim, Dependent, People Pleaser, and Martyr roles, which are versions of the Victim role in Karpman’s model. I also have identified the Rebel cluster as a variant of the Victim cluster, which encompasses the Individualist, Libertarian, Free Spirit, and Sneak social roles. I have adopted the Rescuer role in Karpman’s model as the foundation of another cluster, which also includes the Caretaker and Enabler roles. These clusters tend to complement one another in two-role and three-role vicious cycles, with Karpman’s Persecutor – Victim – Rescuer model serving as the prototype. (For a cultural and political application of this model, see my article, Vicious Cycle Roles on the Societal and Political Level.)

Vicious Cycle Roles on the Societal and Political Level

drama-triangle

The vicious cycle patterns addressed in previous articles get played out not only in personal relationships, but also on the societal and political level. Below is a table identifying key characteristics of the Drama Triangle, first described by Steven Karpman and cited in the book, Games Alcoholics Play, by Claude Steiner. In this pattern, the participants assume three different roles that interact with each other to produce an impasse or gridlock, with each group experiencing mounting frustration. (While it is quite common for participants to alternate between roles, there is also a natural tendency for people to gravitate toward the particular roles that best suit their values and personality styles.) If we apply this vicious cycle model to our Congress, it may help us to appreciate the dynamic process of spinning one’s wheels and going nowhere.

 

[ezcol_1quarter]Descriptive Labels[/ezcol_1quarter] [ezcol_1quarter]Persecutor, Critic, Enforcer, Bully[/ezcol_1quarter] [ezcol_1quarter]Victim, Rebel, Free Spirit[/ezcol_1quarter] [ezcol_1quarter_end]Rescuer, Enabler, Caretaker[/ezcol_1quarter_end]

[ezcol_1quarter]Political Counterpart[/ezcol_1quarter] [ezcol_1quarter]Law & Order Conservative[/ezcol_1quarter] [ezcol_1quarter]Libertarian[/ezcol_1quarter] [ezcol_1quarter_end]Bleeding Heart Liberal[/ezcol_1quarter_end]

[ezcol_1quarter]Prevailing Values[/ezcol_1quarter] [ezcol_1quarter]Order, Security, Conformity[/ezcol_1quarter] [ezcol_1quarter]Freedom, Individuality[/ezcol_1quarter] [ezcol_1quarter_end]Compassion, The Common Good[/ezcol_1quarter_end]

[ezcol_1quarter]Functions of the  Role[/ezcol_1quarter] [ezcol_1quarter]Maintaining the status quo, preserving order and security, reducing the sense of threat[/ezcol_1quarter] [ezcol_1quarter]Enjoying life, maximizing pleasure and minimizing distress, expressing oneself fully[/ezcol_1quarter] [ezcol_1quarter_end]Achieving a sense of worth through helping others who can’t help themselves[/ezcol_1quarter_end]

[ezcol_1quarter]Implicit Basic Assumptions[/ezcol_1quarter] [ezcol_1quarter]Rebels threaten the basic values of our society, and they must be dealt with through force and coercion[/ezcol_1quarter] [ezcol_1quarter]Enforcers are the enemy bent on oppression, and I am not strong or skillful enough to deal with them directly and effectively[/ezcol_1quarter] [ezcol_1quarter_end]Victims are too weak or helpless to take care of their own problems and conflicts, and they need my help[/ezcol_1quarter_end]

[ezcol_1quarter]Typical Roles[/ezcol_1quarter] [ezcol_1quarter]Blaming, judging, criticizing and punishing Rebels for crimes, mistakes, transgressions, shortcoming, and wrongdoings; Criticizing liberals for coddling and inducing unhealthy dependency[/ezcol_1quarter] [ezcol_1quarter]Complaining of unfair treatment and harassment, avoiding the Enforcers, seeking immediate relief and rescue by Enablers, escaping and numbing through substances[/ezcol_1quarter] [ezcol_1quarter_end]Criticizing Enforcers for harshness and insensitivity toward Victims, providing relief for Victims and advocating for them, including helping them escape the natural consequences of  their actions[/ezcol_1quarter_end]

President Bush – Lost in Cyberspace: Can You Help Find Him?

by Robert Lowell Daniel, Ph.D.

The following anecdote, inspired by a cyberspace entry, can be categorized as political satire, yet  this is a rather narrow view of its message. Rather, I propose that this offers an example of the phenomenon of “unintended consequences.” This frequently occurs when one adopts a simplistic cause-and-effect perspective on a rather complex issue, rather than appreciating the overall context, involving a  complex interplay of various factors that culminate in unforeseen outcomes.

Fiction writers are our true anarchists. Who else can reduce our esteemed leaders to mere mortals by telling blatant lies about them, while escaping accountability by confessing to their lies? As a case in point, I recall stumbling across an entry in cyberspace by a self-professed hacker who claimed to have eavesdropped on President George W. Bush’s instant messaging with his daughter. He provided supposed transcripts of their conversation, in which Jenna voiced her frustration to her father about a video war game that “totally” vexed her. In particular, she complained that one of the features of the game was that whenever you killed one of the enemy combatants, two other terrorists rose up in its place. The supposed hacker then had President Bush respond that the answer was simple—just kill them twice as fast. And of course, Jenna gushed in admiration of her father’s brilliance.

I have often regretted that I had not thought to save that particular entry, as my vague memory of it loses much in translation, leaving too much to the imagination of whoever might listen to this account. I have since tried to retrieve this particular work of fiction, to no avail. That was before the age of Twitter and YouTube, and I fear that it is forever lost in cyberspace. But then, I heard the announcement for the three-minute fiction contest on NPR, with its proposed theme of presidential stories, which motivated me to share this anecdote. I submitted it, wondering if anyone out there had the tech-savvy to find this lost jewel. My submission apparently didn’t even make it into cyberspace. (I wonder if it did not meet the standards of political correctness?) In any event, I am resubmitting it on my own website, and I have received word that it has been accepted, at least until any pending review by the NSA. So I am again asking for assistance in finding the original work, so that I might credit the author.

And can you imagine if this were a true account of an actual hacking? How funny would that be?

The Man Who Lost His Key

The following story is an adaptation of an old Middle Eastern tale, one version of which is about Nasrudin, who has been alternately characterized as a wise buffoon or a foolish sage. This setting has been changed so that it relates more to the modern world, and a new ending has also been added.

The story begins, not with the man who lost his key, but with a conscientious preacher in a small town, with his parsonage at one end of town and the church and vestry at the other end. As such, each day he would walk across town to get to work and back home again. Each day he would take the same route – six blocks down and three blocks across on the way to the vestry, and the reverse of that, three blocks down six blocks across on the way back home. On this particular night, he reversed his route, going six blocks down and three blocks across. (And if you know anything about fables, you might recognize that this portends something rather unusual occurring.) He also made his journey particularly late, such that there were no lights on in the houses and there was no moon in the sky.  Thus, it was practically pitch dark, except for the streetlamps on each corner.

As he was making his way back home, he saw a dark figure under the street lamp a block or so away. At first he thought it might be a large dog, but upon approaching, he discovered it was a man on all fours, combing his fingers through the grass under the street lamp. He slowed down as he approached, until he stopped in front of the man.

“Lose something, did you?” he greeted the man.

“Brilliant deduction” came the surly reply.

“What did you lose, if I may ask?”

“A key – if it’s any business of yours,” with this reply punctuated by his piercing glare.

Undaunted, the preacher offered, “Can I help you look for it?”

“It’s a free country – do what you like,” came the flippant response.

The preacher was perplexed, yet not discouraged, and with his being a kindly sort, he was soon down on his hands and knees crawling under the street lamp looking for the key. For some time, the two of them were searching through the grass, under the nearby shrub, along the sidewalk, and down the curb and gutter of the street, looking for the key. After a half hour with no success, the preacher suggested that they search in a more orderly fashion, making swaths to cover the area under the street lamp. The man followed suit, with a shrug of his shoulders, so as to say “whatever.” When this strategy failed to produce the key, the preacher suggested they make their swaths in the perpendicular direction, so as not to overlook any ground. The man complied with neither protest nor enthusiasm.

After considerable time without success, the preacher finally announced, “Sir, I don’t think your key is out here, or else we would’ve found it by now.”

The man responded with a casual, “I know.”

Perhaps too casual, as it aroused the preacher’s curiosity, with his asking, “And just how long have you known this?”

“Oh, since before you came, and I guess since before I even started looking.”

“What? If you knew it all this time, just why have you been looking in this particular spot?”

“Oh, that’s easy,” the man replied as he pointed up at the street lamp, “because this is where the light is.”

It is at this point where the traditional tale ends, yet we discover that there is yet more to this tale, or as Paul Harvey might have added, “Now for the rest of the story.”

The befuddled preacher, tired as he was after this long day at work, could not let go of this conundrum, and so he asked, “If you didn’t lose your key here, do you know where you lost it?”

At this point, the man’s demeanor made a dramatic shift, with his nonchalant attitude turning to anxiety and wariness. He raised his arm and pointed back over his shoulder, to the backyard of the house on the corner, as he stammered “B-b-b-back there.”

The preacher squinted into the dark, with just enough light penetrating the depths to reveal just how neglected and overgrown this backyard was. (At this point, it should perhaps be pointed out that the man lived in the house on the corner, and it was his own backyard he pointed to.)

The preacher readily offered, “Why didn’t you say so? I would’ve gladly gone back there with you to look for your key.”

At this point, the man’s eyes widened and he jumped back, as if he’d seen a ghost, and with his frightful stare at the preacher, he protested, “You gotta be out of your mind, if you think I’m going back there, in the pitch dark, with you, a perfect stranger, to look for my key. Go on home, and leave me alone.”

Here are some proposed study questions, to help tease meaning out of this frivolous tale.

What might the key symbolize? And what might it unlock?

What does it mean that the man and the preacher were searching in the light, and in the man’s front yard?

What does the man’s backyard symbolize?

What is the nature of your darkness, where you might have a key hidden away?

When Thinking Distorts Feelings

Emotions tend to be looked upon unfavorably in a society that puts a premium on rationality and objectivity. Feelings are often seen as clouding one’s thinking, such that it is not uncommon to hear phrases like, “Let’s be rational about this,” and “You don’t need to be so emotional.”

Yet when functioning properly, our feelings are adaptive in directing our responses to various events in our daily lives. For example, love draws us toward our partners and others who are likely to be supportive of our endeavors. Anxiety urges the exercise of caution, stepping back from situations to assess the danger before engaging. It encourages a “look before you leap” attitude. Sadness often times stops us in our tracks, which enables us to take some time to grieve our losses before moving on, so that we do not carry that “extra baggage” with us. Anger encourages us to confront others who challenge our well-being, either by threatening harm or by interfering with our pursuits. Disgust repels us from situations we find noxious, whether physically or emotionally.  In all these examples, emotions play an adaptive role in living secure and rewarding lives.

Yet our feelings do not always function properly. At times, they may be so numbed or muted that we become complacent and avoid responding to situations that need our attention. At other times, our feelings may be “over the top,” too intense for us to utilize properly. That may be somewhat akin to having a jackhammer when a situation calls for a simple hammer. Often, it is not our emotions, but our thinking that is the culprit. Our attitudes shape our feelings toward others, events, and things, in terms of both quality and intensity. We have various sayings that illustrate this phenomenon, such as “seeing the glass as half empty or half full,” “making a mountain out of a molehill,” “seeing the silver lining of the dark cloud.” Such outlooks can have a dramatic impact on one’s feelings, which in turn can have a major impact on whether and how one responds to a given situation.

If we look at stress as an accumulation of various feelings in response to various challenges in living, we come to realize that the level of stress we experience from a given event is not so much determined by the event itself, as it is by our perception and interpretation of that situation. In other words, it is the meaning that we attach to the event that shapes the types and intensity of feelings we experience from it.

Another way of looking at emotions is the analogy of potential energy, such as from gravitational pull. The force of water flowing downhill can be either destructive or constructive. When there is too much water, such as with a downburst, a flash flood can bring pervasive destruction to all downstream from it. Building a dam, on the other hand, not only offers a safeguard against the destructive floodwaters, but also provides an opportunity to harness the energy in generating electricity. Following this analogy, we can work at developing healthier outlooks toward the challenging events in our lives, so that we can make adaptive use of our emotions in guiding our actions, rather than having our feelings, supercharged by maladaptive attitudes, lead us to actions (or inaction) that we later regret.

While these unhealthy attitudes can interfere with our response to events by numbing or shutting down our emotions, this exercise will explore various attitudes that wreak havoc by intensifying the feelings. Here, we will follow the format used in my previous blog, Rationalizations Used to Minimize and Deny Substance Problems, which explores a positive application of the cognitive behavioral approach in challenging various types of rationalizations. The following table presents various types of rationalizations in the first column, while proposing healthier alternative perspectives in the second column.

Challenging Unhealthy Attitudes

[ezcol_1half]Perspectives That Intensify Our Emotions[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Perspectives That Temper Our Emotions[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]The “Egocentric Imperative”: perceiving a situation from only one’s own point of view, often viewing other perspectives as wrong or inferior, if recognizing them at all[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end] Recognizing that there can be various legitimate points of view on a subject, without viewing any of them as inherently right or wrong[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]Assumed Intent: taking things personally, such that one interprets others’ actions as intended to do us harm[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Working at understanding the differences and resolving the problem or conflict, with more of a focus  on the present and future[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]Conditional Assumptions:   assuming that certain relationships imply specific obligations across   the board (the “fine print” in the relationship contract) (e.g., “If you   really loved me, you would . . .” Or “if you were a real friend, you wouldn’t   . . .”n[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Recognizing that we all must balance being-for-others with being-for-ourselves, and that others are   free to choose when to be there for us and when to be there for themselves, and that there are usually no hard-and-fast rules to determine the correct   choice at any given time[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]Assigning Blame:   focusing on who is at fault for a given situation, typically focusing on the past[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Working at understanding the differences and resolving the problem or conflict, with more of a focus   on the present and future[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]The “Fairness Doctrine”:  expecting fair treatment as an automatic or guaranteed right that we are entitled to, almost as if it were a law of nature[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Recognizing that fairness is a social convention adopted to help us get along with one another, and that advocacy is required not only to establish one’s rights, but also to maintain them[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]Dichotomizing: using distinct categories for good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, with black and white   thinking, allowing for no shades of gray[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Recognizing that both sides of an issue can have both positive and negative points[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]Catastrophizing:   imagining the worst-case scenario and treating it as reality[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Making provisional contingency plans for the worst, but also considering and planning for other   possibilities[/ezcol_1half_end]

While this table does not present a complete list of the various perspectives which tend to intensify emotions, it covers a considerable portion of them. We can thus use this as a tool for identifying specific perspectives that intensify feelings, much as we identified various rationalizations used to justify problematic use of substances in the article, Rationalizations Used to Minimize and Deny Substance Problems. In the first column is the statement, using one’s own words or thoughts, which tend to intensify feelings. In the second column is the type of unhealthy perspective being used in this statement. Note that if your example does not appear to fit any of the above categories, you are free to come up with your own category. In the third column, you come up with your own alternative perspective that offers a healthier and more adaptive outlook to the situation. You will note that  most of the spaces on the table are empty. This is simply because I have not sought out the input of my “panel of experts” (i.e., clients with whom I work in individual, family, and group therapy, or readers of my posts). This is a project in the making, and I invite readers of the blog to submit your own examples, which I will gladly plagiarize (so as to protect your anonymity, of course). If I do use your example, you should be honored, as it is plagiarism, not imitation, that is the highest form of flattery.

[ezcol_1third]SPECIFIC ATTITUDES   THAT INTENSIFY   FEELINGS[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]TYPE OF FAULTY OUTLOOK[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]CHALLENGING   PERSPECTIVE[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]That jerk has   some nerve pulling out in front of me without signaling. No one gets away   with disrespecting me like that.  I’ll   show him.[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]Assumed  Intent[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]While that is   reckless driving, it says a lot about him, but nothing about me.  I’m not going to let him bring me down to   his level of disregard by reacting to him.[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]She obviously   doesn’t care about me.  She turned down   my asking her out to the movies because she wanted to get together with her friends   from work.  I guess they are more   important to her than I am.[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]Conditional   Assumption, Egocentric Imperative[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]If I wanted to   take her to the movie that badly, maybe I should have asked her a few days   ahead of time, rather than assuming that her life revolved around me.  I’d likely find her to be somewhat boring   if she didn’t have a life of her own.[/ezcol_1third_end]

Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships 1.0

The following is an article that I wrote about twenty years ago, yet my message is much the same now, though I have elaborated on it and integrated it with other themes, particularly the explorations of relationships as organic systems, rather than in terms of simple cause-and-effect relationships.  The Beetle Bailey comic strip by Mort Walker that I cite is from October 6, 1991, and it continues to be a timeless pattern.

THE CRITIC – VICTIM/REBEL – RESCUER CYCLE

drama-triangle

Adapted from the Persecutor-Victim-Rescuer Cycle, by Stephen Karpman, from the book, Games Alcohols Play, by Claude Steiner (1971)

VICIOUS CYCLES IN RELATIONSHIPS

AND TIPS ON HOW TO STOP SPINNING YOUR WHEELS

By Bob Daniel, Ph.D.

Tidewater Psychotherapy Services

How often have you found yourself caught up in a struggle with a spouse, friend, or other significant person, and the harder you try to resolve the problem, the worse the situation becomes?  And despite realizing this, you are compelled to keep trying the same approach, only harder?  Chances are that your partner in this struggle is experiencing a similar frustration and compulsion, though from a quite different perspective.  These features define the basic vicious cycle pattern of interaction.

 An example will illustrate this phenomenon.  In a “Beetle Bailey” comic strip a while back, General Halftrack’s wife scornfully predicts that he will stop off to have several drinks before returning home after golf.  He becomes sullen and indignant at her insinuation of his lack of self-discipline.  So how does he cope with his distress?  That’s right – he finds solace at his favorite bar.  We can further assume that Mrs. Halftrack will continue to address her loneliness by nagging him even more for his drinking and absences.  Though each spouse has a legitimate need – the wife’s wish for companionship and the husband’s desire for respect and confidence in him – each is responding in a manner that practically negates those possibilities.

 ADDICTION AND CODEPENDENCY

This pattern is one of many profiled in the current literature on addictive and codependent behavior.  Whatever the outlet – alcohol, drugs, pornography, gambling, food, compulsive shopping, etc. – the addiction offers the addict an escape from the codependent’s demands and provides an impersonal mode of tension relief.  This in turn enables the codependent partner to deflect attention away from his or her own inner pain and to focus on the partner’s addictive behavior.  The codependent then typically engages in a campaign of complaining, pleading, bribing, blaming, demanding, threatening, and withholding in order to correct and control the partner’s behavior.  As we saw in the case of the Halftracks, this only serves to perpetuate the problem.

 CRITIC – VICTIM – RESCUER TRIANGLES

The addiction-codependency pattern is only one version of the vicious cycle.  Other cycles may involve a third person, with each participant assuming a specialized role.  Such is the case with the critic-victim-rescuer cycle.  In this pattern the critic blames and punishes the victim, typically for some inadequacy or weakness.  The victim feels hurt, rejected, and fearful. Rather than confront the critic, the victim seeks solace from the rescuer, who identifies with the victim’s pain and assumes a protective posture.  The rescuer implicitly condones the victim’s retreat by interceding with the critic for patience and understanding for the victim.  A frequent implication of this message is that the critic has been cruel and insensitive.  The critic feels rejected and alienated by the victim-rescuer alliance and expresses this by blaming the rescuer for coddling the victim and by again criticizing and punishing the victim at the next instance of weakness, thus starting the cycle over.  These interactions serve to accentuate the roles of the participants:  critic as punitive outcast, victim as helpless dependent, and rescuer as self-sacrificing martyr.  These amplified roles in turn strengthen the vicious cycle.

 FAMILY TRIANGLES

Families are perhaps the prevalent setting for this triangular cycle, and families with rigidly defined roles are often the most susceptible.  In our culture the father commonly serves as disciplinarian, while the mother often provides protection and support.  Rigid adherence to these roles tends to polarize the parents into extreme positions, thereby setting up a critic-victim-rescuer cycle.  In this case the father places harsh, unrealistic demands on the child and the mother protects the child from even the normal risks required to develop competence and independence.  Another version frequently occurs in alcoholic and chaotic families, wherein one parent victimizes the other.  In this case the child attempts to fulfill the rescuer role, sacrificing his or her childhood to assume responsibility prematurely.  In severe cases of either variation, escalation to abuse and violence is possible, and imminent risk would require the intervention of authorities for protection.  Furthermore, these patterns may persist well into the offspring’s adulthood, with these well-learned roles and interactions available to be played out in other settings – including the next generation’s family.

 THE PERSISTENCE OF VICIOUS CYCLES

 Given the futility of vicious cycles, we might wonder why people stay in these downward spirals.  A basic reason is that the roles and interactions are well-learned from our family backgrounds, and we are apprehensive about trying anything new and unfamiliar.  Besides the security of the familiar, there also seems to be an innate human tendency to rework frustrating situations until we get them right.  This urge even extends to the choice of one’s spouse.  It has been observed that the overly responsible children of alcoholics often end up marrying alcoholics or similarly addicted personalities, even when they consciously try not to.  Thus, the partners tend to be well-matched in their complementary roles, which further strengthens the grip of the vicious cycle.

 Attempts to give up dysfunctional roles often pose threats to the identity upon which our self-esteem is based. Identity involves who we are not, as well as who we are.  Persons living out deeply ingrained roles often view other choices as totally alien:  “That’s just not me.”  A critic will feel comfortable expressing anger but not hurt, which is taken as a sign of weakness.  A victim will show hurt and doubt but not anger, which is seen as bad.  A rescuer will show hurt and anger for others, yet view doing so for oneself as selfish.  These definitions of self narrow the participants’ options and further lock them into their vicious cycle roles.

 FINDING THE WAY OUT

Once you recognize that you are in a vicious cycle, how can you escape it?  Actually, recognition is a major step, since stepping back to gain perspective releases you from the tunnel vision that keeps you focused on your partner’s role in the struggle.  Reflection usually shows that there is no single culprit responsible for the mess, but that each person plays a part.  This tends to counter the good vs. evil thinking that often perpetuates the struggle:  participants may blame each other and ignore their own choices, or they may attempt to relieve the distress of guilt, inadequacy, or assigned blame through some addictive or otherwise self-destructive behavior.  Gaining the perspective it takes to get yourself into the picture enables you to see the overall problem and to explore new options to resolve it.  When both partners in a vicious cycle get an overview of their dilemma, it can lead to an exciting process of mutual discovery.

 Even if only one partner were wanting to work on breaking the cycle, simply declining to participate in the vicious cycle in the usual way can help.  If Mrs. Halftrack stops complaining, the general might start assuming responsibility for his drinking, since he can no longer blame it on her nagging.  Or if he could stop drinking to relieve his distress, she might begin attending to her own loneliness.  Note that these are only possibilities, not guarantees.  You can influence others, but you cannot control them.  The paradox of influence is that it works best when you give up the illusion of control.  Thus, the most effective way out of a vicious cycle is to work on changing yourself.  Even then, it might not be enough, especially if your partner is deeply committed to his or her role.  Then, getting out of the vicious cycle may mean getting out of the relationship.

 GETTING HELP

Breaking a vicious cycle can be a truly difficult process, and support and guidance can be critical to its success.  If you are prone to vicious cycles, then your self-image will tend to be narrowly defined by your assumed role, with significant aspects of the psyche relegated to the “not me.”  Just as you require a mirror to reflect your body image, you come to see your personal self reflected in the eyes of others.  Thus, friends outside your vicious cycle can help you discover the disowned aspects of yourself that can help free you from the cycle.  Yet they may also become involved in the vicious cycle themselves, often in the rescuer role.  This usually just reinforces the narrow view of yourself defined by the vicious cycle.  It thus is important to assess their advice and support, rather than simply accepting it on blind faith.  Support groups, such as those focused around addictions and codependency, can be quite beneficial, since the members tend to be at various stages of recovery and disengagement from vicious cycles.  Psychotherapy can also be quite helpful.  While their techniques will vary according to theoretical orientation, therapists have the conceptual tools to support disengagement from vicious cycles.  Furthermore, therapists have often undergone extensive training and self-exploration to avoid getting caught up in the vicious cycles themselves in providing therapy.

 THE REWARDS:  SELF-ESTEEM AND INTIMACY

Escaping the vicious cycles offers the opportunity to expand one’s identity and to establish emotional intimacy with one’s partner.  A victim who uses her previously disowned anger to challenge her critics can become self-confident and gain the respect of others.  A rescuer who learns to advocate for herself and put her needs first can find greater satisfaction in relationships and discover her intrinsic self-worth.  A critic who admits his pain and vulnerability often finds greater acceptance from others, which helps to release him from the pressure of his own self-imposed unrealistic expectations.  Additionally, the self-defeating roles themselves can be transformed in healthier modes of relating.  A harsh critic who softens his judgmentalism can serve as an instructive mentor, guide or coach.  A rescuer who refrains from taking on others’ problems can care for others, rather than take care of them.  A victim who assumes responsibility for dealing with his problems can learn from authority figures rather than avoiding them as critics or seeking refuge through them as rescuers.  Furthermore, his expression of feelings can serve the self-disclosure required for his partners’ empathy.  When partners alternate among these various roles, then mutual support and intimacy become possible.  While breaking out of vicious cycle roles is difficult, the rewards of healthy self-esteem and enhanced intimacy are well worth the effort.

Dr. Bob Daniel is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist in private practice with Tidewater Psychotherapy Services in Virginia.

Dealing with Conflict in Relationships: The Art of Assertiveness

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.

“How Can I Like Myself Better?”: An Inquiry into Self-esteem

We all probably have an intuitive sense that self-esteem is an important factor affecting our interactions with others, our readiness to deal with problems, and our pursuit of our goals: liking ourselves gives us the self-confidence to meet these challenges and to do so more effectively.  Yet self-esteem is a vague and elusive concept, one which is difficult to apply on a practical basis.  This article addresses what self-esteem is, what its qualities are, and how it develops, and then applies this understanding to the issue of how to work on our self-esteem in our everyday lives. 

 self-esteem image

What is self-esteem?

Essentially, self-esteem is a measure of how well we like ourselves.  It is the evaluative component of our identity, our value judgment of who we are – the various roles, values and attributes that we identify as our own.  It goes beyond pure description and decides whether these qualities are good to have.  Yet self-esteem is not just a judgment of our individual qualities or traits, but a valuing of the total self – positive or negative.

What if we’re not sure about how we feel about ourselves?  Sometimes we might feel really pleased with ourselves, yet other times we might feel embarrassed or even ashamed of ourselves.

That’s an excellent point.  How we feel about ourselves can change considerably from day to day, or even from hour to hour, depending upon our circumstances. This variability is a second aspect of self-esteem, after the value aspect of high or low self-esteem.  This variability will differ from person to person.  Some individuals’ self-esteem remains rather consistent across different situations, whereas others’ varies widely with changing circumstances.

Why is self-esteem more consistent for some and more variable for others?

The stability of self-esteem is related to the degree of integration and stability of identity.  If our sense of who we are is inconsistent across different situations, then our sense of self-worth is likely to fluctuate, as well.  If, however, we are able to maintain the “big picture” of who we are despite different roles or conditions, then our self-esteem is likely to be rather stable.

Another factor contributing to this variability is the degree our self-esteem depends upon others.  This dependence may take two forms.  The more familiar version involves relying upon the regular affirmation or approval from others to feel good about ourselves.  And on the negative side, it is the degree to which our self-esteem is vulnerable to criticism, disapproval, and rejection by others.  The second and less familiar version of dependence involves achieving self-esteem through our identification with people and organizations that we admire.  For example, we feel better about ourselves if our partner receives an award or our hometown team wins the championship.  Our self-esteem is attained vicariously , through our identification with those whom we admire. Conversely, we suffer a blow to our self-esteem when our heroes let us down – we experience their shortcomings as reflecting poorly on ourselves.  With either type of dependence, our sense of self-worth would tend to fluctuate more if it depends extensively on others fulfilling these roles, since they are not always going to be there for us, whether by approving of our actions or by living up to our expectations.  The independence of our self-esteem, the degree to which we have taken charge of determining our own self-worth in spite of how others feel about us or how they meet our expectations, will therefore affect its stability – something we will address later in the article.

Yet another factor affecting variability of self-esteem is whether it is primarily conditional or intrinsic.  Conditional self-esteem involves liking ourselves according to our being and acting in a preferred or acceptable manner.  Intrinsic self-esteem, however,  is a sense of self-worth for just being ourselves, without having to prove ourselves by meeting any particular goals or expectations.  It makes sense that this sort of self-esteem is more stable, since it would not be influenced so much by the normal ups and downs of our changing functioning.

What if we really don’t stop to ask ourselves how much we like ourselves – does that mean we don’t have much self-esteem?

Not at all.  Our self-esteem doesn’t have to be expressed in words or even put into thoughts to be active.  It is implicit in how well we treat ourselves.  You are no doubt familiar with the saying, “Action speaks louder than words.”  When we give ourselves a reward for a job well done, or when we ask for help on a demanding task, or when we take the last piece of cake, our actions are saying that we are valuable and deserving.  And when we let others manipulate us without saying anything, or when we don’t ask for something that is very important to us, our inaction is expressing our self-esteem, though in a negative way.  Of course, we often do make conscious judgments about ourselves in such circumstances, and the degree to which we do expresses our emphasis on self-esteem – yet another aspect of this concept.

So, is it good or bad to emphasize our self-esteem?

That depends.  Being self-aware is generally good, and that awareness can be either descriptive or judgemental.  Descriptive self-awareness pays attention to what and how we think, feel and behave, but doesn’t pass judgement on it.  The current practice of mindfulness cultivates such an awareness of self.  Judgmental self-awareness, in contrast, evaluates whether our thoughts, feelings and actions are good or bad, and this function thus can be useful for guiding our behavior.  But an excessive emphasis on maintaining positive self-regard can be disruptive.  We lose something when preoccupation with our self-image overshadows the various activities and relationships in which we are involved.  The extreme attitudes of “winning is everything” and “image is everything” generally dampen the intrinsic enjoyment of life.  These outlooks also tend to play havoc with relationships.  If we are preoccupied with our self-image, we usually require others to affirm our self-worth on a regular basis.  We would tend to view others primarily in terms of how they enhance our self-image, and this would cause us to neglect or overlook their feelings, needs, and wants.  Or we might require others close to us to meet exacting standards so that we can feel good about ourselves through our identification with them.  A common example of this is parents who pressure their children to be star athletes.  While they often make extensive sacrifices, this comes at a considerable price to the child.  Thus, constantly judging ourselves, whether directly or vicariously through others, not only can interfere with our intrinsic enjoyment of  activities, but also can disrupt our relationships.

 

But doesn’t this argument suggest that concern with self-esteem is bad and that it just increases self-absorption?

That’s a common misconception.  People often assume that the more we care about ourselves, the less we care about others.  Here it is important to distinguish between narcissism, with its emphasis on self-image, and healthy self-esteem, which is largely intrinsic and relatively independent of others’ approval.  With narcissism our self-image is largely dependent upon both our own accomplishments and others’ recognition of them, and we would tend to perceive others in terms of our own ego needs, rather than as individuals in their own right.  Healthy self-esteem, however, involves substantial faith in our intrinsic self-worth, so that it is less dependent upon the continuing affirmation of others. Thus, when we have a fundamental sense of self-worth, we are able to maintain positive self-regard even when in conflict with others we value, thus enabling us to respect their feelings, needs,  wants and opinions.  Where this intrinsic self-esteem is lacking, it is possible to work on self-esteem without requiring the submission of others, so that the integrity of others is respected as well.  We’ll address this issue when we explore how to work on self-esteem.

 

But can’t this self-awareness also be detrimental in focusing too much on our faults?

That’s right.  When used properly, self-awareness is quite enriching and useful.  It can simply enrich our lives by allowing us greater appreciation of our own involvement in our activities, pursuits and relationships.  Or it can function as a time-out in a sports competition, whereby we assess our part in a problematic situation and plan out a strategy to approach it differently to resolve the problem.  Yet quite often the self-reflection actually interferes with the planning and problem-solving that it is supposed to serve.  When that happens, we usually speak of someone being “too self-conscious.”

What is responsible for this misuse of self-reflection?

One important aspect is what we might call the “blame and shame” cycle, in which we get so caught up in blaming ourselves for a problem and feeling such intense shame that it interferes with our examining an issue in a realistic manner to find an effective solution to a problem or to understand the meaning a particular paradox may hold for us.  Self-reflection can be an effective tool for solving problems or recognizing paradoxes, but with such critical self-judgment, it often is counter-productive, even to the point of causing us to avoid problems or conflicts we really need to address.  Another frequent mistake is setting excessively high standards for ourselves.  So instead of shooting for a goal which is within reach, we might strive for an objective that is unrealistic or currently unattainable.

So, there’s a lot more to self-esteem than just being high or low, positive or negative.

That’s right.  In summary, we can speak of five different aspects  of self-esteem – value, variability, emphasis, dependence on others, and conditional vs. intrinsic typeValue is the most familiar to us, the positive or negative coloring of how we characteristically see ourselves.  The key word here is “characteristically,” since it implies some variability in self-esteem, which is  the second facetthe degree to which self-esteem fluctuates between highs and lows across time and situation.  The third aspect is the degree of conscious emphasis that we give to our self-esteem.  These three dimensions are affected by two other factors: first, the degree that our self-esteem is dependent upon others vs. its independence from influence; and second, the extent to which our self-esteem is conditional, dependent upon meeting certain expectations, vs. intrinsic, valuing ourselves just for being who we are without having to pass certain tests.  And problems in self-esteem can arise in some or all of these areas: our self-esteem can be generally low and variable, highly dependent on living up to standards and gaining the approval of others, while fostering an undue conscious emphasis on our self-image. 

Now that we have established what self-esteem is, how do we go about getting it?

Let’s start with how we attained our self-esteem in the first place.  Initially, we acquired our self-esteem through our parents and caretakers in two different ways, comparable to the two types of  dependence on others for our self-esteem that we examined earlier.  First, we learned to value ourselves according to the approval or disapproval of others, feeling good about ourselves with their praise and admiration and feeling bad about ourselves with their criticism and fault-finding.  The quality of these appraisals, whether they are intrinsic or conditional, is quite important for the development of our identity and self-esteem.  Intrinsic affirmation conveys our sense of worth for just being ourselves, whereas conditional affirmation is contingent upon our acting within a certain range of acceptable behavior.  We’ve all probably heard one or another version of the expression, “I love you, even though I don’t approve of your behavior.”  This is an example of unconditional acceptance of the person that builds intrinsic self-esteem.  With conditional affirmation our self-esteem tends to be less stable and to fluctuate with the perceived acceptability of our behaviour.  And with a fear of losing the approval of others, we tend to develop a “false self” that conforms to others’ expectations yet is untrue to our inner needs and feelings.

Another aspect of acquiring our self-esteem from others involves our identification with others whom we can admire and respect.  These people not only serve as role models to guide our development, but they also enhance our self-worth through our association with them.  In looking up to them, we feel better about ourselves.  Among other places, we witness this in the pride that people display in basking in the glory of their favorite sports team.

As is the case with our identity, we claim possession of our self-esteem when we challenge others’ appraisals of ourselves to determine our own self-worth.  Then our self-esteem becomes our own, gaining independence from the evaluations of others.

But don’t our parents and teachers need to correct us?  How are we going to learn anything if they don’t?

Yes, we do need help to learn from our mistakes, and we certainly need clear direction away from potentially dangerous situations.  Furthermore, the normal socialization process that helps us to develop our conscience and  moral values requires some disapproval of our behavior that violates the rights of others or simply neglects their feelings or needs.   Yet this disapproval often goes too far: frequently, it gets directed at the total self rather than at the problematic behavior, as we noted in the discussion of intrinsic and conditional self-worth.  The message may also be quite severe, such as “You’re stupid,” “You’ll never amount to anything,” or “You’re really disgusting.” We typically carry these messages with us well into adulthood, particularly if we have not also experienced more positive messages about ourselves to counter the negative evaluations.  These messages tend to be consolidated into an internal force with a life of its own, acting on us largely outside of our conscious control. After hearing these messages so many times, we  “internalize” them, or make them our own, to have available to say to ourselves when we let ourselves down.  This internalized condemning voice is sometimes referred to as the harsh inner critic, the punitive superego, or the internal saboteur.  Yet it usually doesn’t make sense to beat ourselves up for mistakes or shortcomings – after all, reality will probably punish us enough for our limitations.  But we aren’t always rational, especially when it comes to dealing with problems and frustration.

That may explain how someone got low self-esteem, but why would anyone continue to beat up on themselves?

There are several possible explanations for this.  For one thing, these self-messages tend to be well-learned and highly ingrained.  They don’t go away by themselves and they frequently return whenever we encounter some mistake or shortcoming on our part.  It may be easier to avoid dealing with the self-criticism than to challenge it.  Of course, as this often involves avoidance of the initial problem, it just makes room for more self-criticism, this time for the avoidance. The self-blame and shameful avoidance tend to feed off of each other in the “blame and shame” vicious cycle, reinforcing the pattern.   And as absurd as it may sound, there may also be some pay-offs that reinforce self-criticism.  Maintaining an extremely high standard for ourselves implies an attitude that we could meet that expectation, even though we may not be doing so at the moment.  Lowering the standards we set for ourselves thus implies a lowering of our sense of our own potential, and this disillusionment may be hard to accept.  Even if it is not a conscious choice, we might choose to berate ourselves for our current shortcomings rather than give up our illusions about our potential and admitting to our human limitations.  There may be a perverse pride that is involved in beating up on ourselves, especially if we don’t hold others to the same high standards.  For these reasons, this self-criticism continues as an major force that disrupts our self-esteem when we encounter our shortcomings.

This gets us to the question of how we can work on low self-esteem.  What can we do about the harsh inner critic?

We can start by paying attention to the kind of messages that we give ourselves, particularly when we encounter some shortcoming or mistake on our part.  We need to follow the dictum of “know your enemy” in trying to learn about the inner critic that gives us such a hard time.  We may be able to identify what critical messages we give ourselves rather easily, or we may have to work at uncovering the implicit message in the oppressive feeling and self-doubt that we experience.  The next step is to put the inner critic in perspective.  One approach is to explore where it came from: can we relate this message to any important figures in our past?  Giving the inner critic a name can create some psychological distance between it and ourselves, which gives us some perspective.  Next we can challenge the inner critic, and here it is important to enlist a helpful attitude, such as that of a supportive coach. With this outlook, we can both refute the berating message of the inner critic and propose a supportive, self-affirming message that expresses an acceptance of our human limitations while encouraging ourselves to move forward.  We can thus challenge the self-punitive side of ourselves, acknowledge our wounds from it, and re-focus ourselves from the “blame and shame” cycle back to the original problem or difficulty that evoked the self-blame.  We can also help give ourselves credit for the smaller steps that are required to complete a project, rather than berating ourselves for not getting it done right sooner.  This outlook can help us to accept our own human limitations and to view our shortcomings or mistakes as opportunities to overcome habitual patterns and to learn more adaptive responses to problems.

But isn’t there a risk that all this attention on self-blame and low self-esteem can increase our self-consciousness and make the problem worse?

That certainly is a valid concern.  Putting too much emphasis on ourselves can detract from the intrinsic enjoyment that we can achieve from participating in an activity or being in a relationship.  And interrupting our involvement in an activity or relationship for self-reflection interferes with the intrinsic enjoyment as well – even if that interruption is reassurance or praise.  The technique of challenging the inner critic is used most effectively when the inner critic has already done its dirty work of disrupting our involvement.  Then, it helps us heal our emotional wounds and get back out on the playing field of life.

Doesn’t this approach emphasize the conditional type of self-esteem?  And didn’t you say that this sort of self-esteem is less stable, since it is contingent on whether our current behavior is successful and appropriate?

That’s an excellent point.  For this reason, it is important to affirm our intrinsic self-worth, not just the value we earn through our accomplishments.  We need to develop an inner comforter and nurturer to complement the guide function of the supportive coach role we addressed earlier.  A popular expression of this is the use of affirmations that declare our intrinsic worth, such as “I’m OK the way I am,” “I deserve to be cared about,” and “I’m doing the best that I can, and that’s good enough.”

Telling ourselves such things is one thing, but the real test lies in how we treat ourselves.  Do we eat properly and get sufficient sleep?  Do we allow ourselves sufficient recreation, exercise and relaxation to relieve stress and revitalize ourselves?  Do we share our feelings with others and ask for their support and understanding, or do we bury them away and suffer in silence?  Do we claim the respect that we deserve from others, or do we tolerate their criticalness, name-calling, neglect, abuse, manipulation or coercion?  Do we usually put others’ needs ahead of our own?  And when we do tend to our needs, do we feel guilty about it?  How we answer these questions through our actions conveys implicit messages to ourselves about our sense of intrinsic self-worth.  What are we telling ourselves when we appease our emotional discomfort through outlets such as excess drinking, overeating or compulsive shopping?  Isn’t this somewhat analogous to offering candy to a malnourished child?  What are we saying about ourselves when we suffer alone in silence, or when we tolerate lack of respect?  All of our verbal affirmations will ring hollow unless we back them up with self-care:  action speaks louder than words.

Self-care sounds pretty simple, but it can also be quite difficult to carry out, especially if caring and support were lacking during our development.  If our parents and caretakers primarily valued us for our accomplishments and virtuous living to foster our conditional sense of self-worth, then they may well have neglected our emotional needs.  Not only does this neglect make it more difficult to access these feelings later on, but it often produces a buried store of hurt and anger which emerges as we start tending to our feelings.  Acknowledging our wants, needs, feelings and insecurities can help us to develop compassion for ourselves, as well as opening the door for others to understand and care about us.  But if we do not demonstrate caring for ourselves, how can we expect others to take our want, needs and feelings seriously?

This is all work that we should be doing ourselves, right?  It was all right to depend on others to help us with our identity and self-esteem when we were young, but we should do it for ourselves now that we are adults, to attain an independent identity. 

On the contrary, trying to do it all ourselves individually may be setting ourselves up for failure.  While pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps is a noble idea, there may be something rather egotistical about trying to go it alone, without any help.  I probably overstated the ideal of an independent identity and self-esteem.  We continue to rely on others for feedback about ourselves, who we are and whether that’s good or bad, though we examine their input to decide whether to incorporate it into our identity or to dismiss it.  The more appropriate ideal may be one of an interdependent identity and self-esteem, rather than a predominantly dependent or independent one.

But what about your point that it’s not right to exploit others to boost our egos?

There’s a big difference between demanding others’ uncritical affirmation of our self-image and making use of their freely offered support.  The concern pertains to whether we view others exclusively in terms of enhancing our self-image, or whether we can appreciate them as individuals in their own right, with worthwhile needs, feelings, wants, aspirations, and accomplishments of their own, so that we can enjoy the intrinsic rewards of a reciprocal relationship.  Sheldon Bach’s recommendation that we balance our being-for-self with our being-for-others applies here.  We must also be ready to accept the fact that others are not always going to be there to affirm our identity and self-esteem – there will be times that they will not be available or will not be able or willing to fulfill that role in the way we would like.  For that reason, it is important to have a relatively broad support system, rather than depending exclusively on one person for our affirmation, and to be able to work on our self-esteem and identity by ourselves, when others are not available.  These provisions will lessen the likelihood of perceiving others primarily in terms of our own needs, whether those needs be of ego-enhancement or for understanding and support.  Then, we can establish intimacy, in which we share our vulnerabilities as well as our strengths with others on a reciprocal basis.

Now  that we’ve established that it is OK to rely on others to affirm our self-esteem, how can they help us?

The guidelines here parallel those of how we can help ourselves.  Others can affirm our intrinsic self-worth, regardless of our personal shortcomings.  They can show realistic admiration for our accomplishments or serve as healthy role models for qualities that we may wish to emulate.  They can give us honest feedback about how we come across to them, acknowledging our shortcomings as well as our strengths, while still valuing our basic self-worth.  Though this qualified support may be painful at times, it can also help us to give up our grandiose illusions of ourselves and to accept all of our human qualities, even when they represent limitations.  Others can encourage our continued efforts to work on our projects and relationships at the pace we are capable of, so that we can continue to develop our identities.  They can show appreciation for those times that we support their self-esteem and identity, and this gratitude can in turn enhance our self-esteem.

But what if we don’t really have people in our lives who are capable of providing this support?

First of all, don’t be too quick to discount others.  We may be inclined to assume that they should be able to give us what we need without our having to ask, but we need to challenge that assumption.  After all, we’ve listed a number of ways in which others can support our identity and self-esteem, and which ones we need at any given time may not be all that obvious.  It is true that others’ characteristic styles may not be that helpful:  some may condemn us for our faults, some may give advice when we need to figure things out for ourselves, and some may attempt to rescue us when we need to handle the problems ourselves.  Our specifying our own needs not only increases our chances of getting what we need, but it also presents others with the opportunity to develop themselves in ways that they may not have considered.

Still, there is the very real possibility that other significant people in our lives may not be able or willing to support our identity and self-esteem.  If we have self-esteem and identity issues because we experienced neglect or abuse during our youth, then we may have the additional burden of having chosen partners and friends who tend to be abusive or neglectful of our feelings.  While this may not make sense and we may berate ourselves for these choices, the simple truth is that we tend to choose that which is familiar to us, even if it is not that rewarding. We may need to work actively at developing a more supportive personal network.  This may involve joining a support group, and many are available that address problematic behaviors and addictions related to low self-esteem, such as alcoholism, drug abuse, anorexia, bulimia, codependency, gambling, compulsive sexuality, agoraphobia, or depression.  Psychotherapy can be a crucial asset, particularly in identifying the particular issues and conflicts involved in self-esteem and identity problems and in resolving them.  These options can be quite effective in helping to free ourselves from habitual patterns that thwart our evolving identity, but they also run the risk of emphasizing negative aspects of our lives.  For example, replacing an identity of alcoholic with that of recovering alcoholic is a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t go far enough.  We need to base our identity on where we are going, even moreso than on where we are coming from.  We need to define ourselves through activities and relationships that satisfy our inner needs and wants:  what gives us enjoyment?  what makes us happy?  We can use Joseph Campbell’s guiding principle of “follow your bliss” to direct our involvement with activities and relationships.  An effective approach to self-esteem requires a balance between pursuing our dreams, living in the moment, and staying alert to those pitfalls that knock us off course.

Balance seems to be a recurrent theme for healthy self-esteem.

That’s right.  We require substantial spontaneous, ongoing involvement in activities and relationships in order to feel alive and vitally connected to others, as well as a certain amount of self-reflection for the perspective and self-awareness to better understand our relationships and pursuits.  This understanding can help us to find a suitable balance between focusing on ourselves and on others, so that we are neither self-centered nor living out our lives through others.  Healthy self-esteem requires a substantial sense of our intrinsic value to lend it stability, as well as some conditional self-approval to motivate us to accomplish our goals.  A balance between a realistic recognition of our past accomplishments, a vital involvement in our present relationships and activities, and the pursuit of our aspirations for the future further supports our self-esteem.  Finally, a balance between independent work and use of others for support is an important aspect of our work on self-esteem which ultimately enhances our involvement with others:  with independence and mutual support we can better appreciate each other for ourselves, so that we can all take care of our wants, needs and feelings and work toward achieving our goals in life.

Dr. Bob Daniel is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist in private practice with Tidewater Psychotherapy Services in Virginia Beach.

Rationalizations Used To Minimize and Deny Substance Problems

Recognizing Rationalizations

We often use rationalizations to justify unhealthy activities we have difficulty giving up. This is certainly common with substance abuse. We may not even recognize how we are fooling ourselves with our excuses and alibis. If we can recognize our rationalizations, we might catch ourselves before doing further damage. By identifying common types of rationalizations, this blog seeks to support this understanding and to help prevent relapses.

Definitions and Examples

We start by defining “rationalization” and seven common types of rationalization. Note that “rationalization” is the all-encompassing or catchall category, and the other terms are specific types of rationalizations. We also provide examples for each of these types, to illustrate the concepts.

Practicing Identification of Types

We need to practice developing our recognition and understanding of how these rationalizations play out in our lives. For this practice, we have a multiple choice exercise. We ask our readers to identify the type of rationalization that best fits each of the twenty examples. Some of the examples may have two or three more-or-less correct answers, but we are looking for the best specific answer. In other words, you might hit the target, but we are aiming for the bull’s-eye. So, if you answer “rationalization” for all the examples, you would hit the target every single time. You’d still miss the bull’s-eye most of the time.

Of course, the practical application of this exercise does not require the identification of the specific type of rationalization. We introduce this aspect of the exercise simply to more actively engage the participant.

Translating the Rationalizations

The third column of the exercise is a challenge to the rationalization. This often involves a translation of what the rationalization really is saying, typically calling out its absurdity. I have attempted to introduce some humor into the translation or challenge as a method of helping the medicine go down. Recognizing our con-job on ourselves can be a bitter pill to swallow.

The Evolution of This Exercise

This exercise has evolved out of my years of doing substance abuse work in private practice. Several of the examples have come from actual responses given by my clients, whereas others have been adapted or modified from those responses. I have not given specific credit to those clients, as I wish to protect their anonymity. They should feel honored with the knowledge that it is plagiarism, not imitation, that is the highest form of flattery.

If therapists or counselors wish to utilize this exercise, they may do so with the proper recognition of credits.  I would ask that you identify me as the author and www.roguepsychologist.com as the source.

By the way, if you wish to have a list of the official correct answers for the exercise, you’ll have to leave a request in the comment section following the post, preferably with some constructive feedback.  This is just my way of encouraging the readers to interact more actively with this site.

Types of Rationalizations

Rationalization – an argument that is not quite relevant, used in order to explain away, excuse, or justify a behavior that really doesn’t make sense.
The following are various types of rationalizations, which often are used to justify substance abuse:

Minimization – minimizing or downplaying some aspect of your drug or alcohol use in order to underestimate the likelihood or seriousness of the problem (e.g., “What harm is just one more drink going to do, anyway?”)

Exaggeration – overestimating other aspects of a substance-related incident in order to lessen your own personal responsibility for causing the problem (e.g., “If I’d only fixed that tail light, I would never have been stopped and gotten that DUI.”)

Undergeneralization – failure to recognize the similarity between your own substance-related problems and that of others who abuse or depend on substances (e.g., “I don’t abuse alcohol. It’s not like I drink every day.”)

Overgeneralization – addressing your substance use so broadly as to overlook the particular aspects of it that cause problems (e.g., “Everybody overindulges now and then. I just got caught – that’s all.”)

Faulty Comparison – comparing your own substance problems, use pattern, or drug of choice to something worse in order to make your own problems or responsibility seen minor by comparison (e.g., The cops ought to be chasing the real criminals – robbers, murderers, rapists – rather than picking on ordinary citizens like you and me.”)

Projection of Blame – avoiding or minimizing your own personal responsibility for substance abuse by focusing either on how someone else caused you to behave that way (e.g., “Now, see what you made me do!”) or on how someone else overreacted or responded unfairly to your behavior (e.g., “Those cops hanging out at t/he strip are just waiting for you to slip up.”)

Denial – overlooking or refusing to recognize your substance related problem, which appears obvious to most people (e.g., the tobacco company executives stating to Congress that “no one’s actually proven that nicotine is addictive.”)

Examples

STATEMENTTYPE OF RATIONALIZATIONTRANSLATION OR CHALLENGE
"The cops and the courts are just out to get you and your money - that's all there is to it."A. Projection of Blame
B. Minimization
C. Overgeneralization
D. Exaggeration
"I'd rather feel like a helpless victim of an unfair system than feel guilty about how my drinking put others at risk."
"It's only a short drive. Nothing's going to happen."A. Overgeneralization
B. Undergeneralization
C. Minimization
D. Rationalization
"I am willing to take repeated risks because I do not believe that the law of averages applies to me."
"I only get drunk when my wife's busy or out of town and the kids are at their mom's. I'm not hurting anybody."A. Minimization
B. Exaggeration
C. Projection of Blame
D. Faulty Comparison
"I'm really only concerned about getting caught, not about how I am letting myself and others down by not taking my recovery seriously."
"Smoking pot doesn't mess up your driving like alcohol does."A. Faulty Comparison
B. Projection of Blame
C. Overgeneralization
D. Pot Calling the Kettle Black
"I am going to find something else worse to compare marijuana to, so that I can ignore the fact that marijuana impairs functioning, too."
"I'm not an alcoholic - I don't drink before five o'clock."A. Projection of BLame
B. Faulty Comparison
C. Undergeneralization
D. Exaggeration
"I'm only a nighttime alcoholic - that doesn't really count.
"I can control my drinking if I want to - I'm not an alcoholic."A. Faulty Comparison
B. Exaggeration
C. Denial
D.Either A or C
"Your Honor, I choose to drink irresponsibly - I only abuse alcohol, I 'm not dependent on it."
"I know when I'm intoxicated, and I'm actually a more careful driver then."A. Projection of Blame
B. Rationalizatioon
C. Exaggeration
D. Overgeneralization
"I can compensate for my impaired judgment, poor motor skills, and distorted perception when I drink - unlike those amateur drinkers or elderly drivers."
"If you'd get off my back for a change, maybe I'd cut back. Did you ever stop to think of that?"A. Faulty Comparison
B. Projection of Blame
C. Exaggeration
D. Overgeneralization
"I can't seem to find a better response to your criticism than by my drinking. By blaming you for making me drink, I don't have to feel guilty over it."
"It could happen to anybody. Why are you giving me such a hard time for a DUI? Everybody makes mistakes."A. Minimization
B. Undergeneralization
C. Faulty Comparison
D. Overgeneralization
"In saying I'm like everyone else, I refuse to recognize that I am increasing the chances of my getting into trouble over my drinking."
"I'll just use this one last time. I'll start my recovery program tomorrow."A. Rationalization
B. Exaggeration
C. Faulty Comparison
D. Projection of Blame
"By starting my recovery tomarrow, I'll never have to quit, because tomorrow is always a day away."
"What harm is one more drink going to do?"A. Faulty Comparison
B. Overgeneralization
C. Minimization
D. Projection of Blame
"If I just look at one drink at a time, I don't have to look at the overall pattern of how I get drunk."
"I'm already in trouble now. I might as well go all the way - I'm going to catch hell for it anyway."A. Overgeneralization
B. Rationalization
C. Projection of Blame
D. Faulty Comparison
"I don't believe in damage control. If I mess up, that's a good excuse to go all the way."
"Everybody has their own bad habits. I'm no different than anyone else."A. Minimization
B. Overgeneralization
C. Projection of Blame
D. Undergeneralization
"If I say that everone has their own bad habits, then I can ignore how my cocaine addiction is ruining my life."
"I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time."A. Denial
B. Exggeration
C. Undergeneralization
D. Faulty Comparison
"I'd rather consider myself a victim of circumstances than feel responsible for the mess I got myself into by driving while intoxicated."
"I don't drink any more than anyone else does, so stop giving me such a hard time."A. Overgeneralization
B. Rationalization
C. Exaggeration
D. Projection of Blame
"All my friends drink really heavily, so I use them as my comparison group, so I don't have to feel so bad about my drinking."
"Just because I've had a few run-ins with the law doesn't mean that I have a drinking problem."A. Overgeneralization
B. Denial
C. Projection of Blame
D. Exaggeration
"It's only a coincidence that every time I have been arrested I've been drunk."
"If we had only taken the interstate, we would've avoided that DUI checkpoint, and l wouldn't have gotten that DUI."A. Minimization
B. Exaggeration
C. Overgeneralization
D. Faulty Comparison
"If we had taken the interstate, I probably would've been driving faster and more recklessly, and we might all be dead now."
"If my probation officer wasn't such a jerk to test me on January 2, I wouldn't be in this mess."A. Projection of Blame
B. Minimization
C. Overgeneralization
D.Undergeneralization
"Tell me again - how was it that you got on probation?"
"Drinking takes the edge off of my social anxiety, so what's wrong with that?"A. Faulty Comparison
B. Exaggeration
C. Projection of Blamel
D. Rationalization
"I don't have the commitment and patience to work on my social anxiety in a healthy way, so I just settle for a temporary quick fix."
"I wish my family would get off my case for my drinking. I don't have a problem with it. In fact, I probably wouldn't drink that much if they just would leave me alone."A. Faulty Comparison
B. Denial
C. Projection of Blame
D. Both B and C
"Alcohol must be pretty important to me in order for me not to see what is rather obvious to others. I'll just say they can't be objective about it, so I don't have to recognize my problems or change my behvior."

 

My thanks to the various anonymous donors whose field research and expertise made this list possible. They should view my claiming this as my own work as the highest honor. As I always say, “Imitation is not the highest form of flattery – plagiarism is.” Would you believe that I came up with that saying all by myself!)