Tag Archives: conflict resolution

Escaping the Victim Role

Interpersonal Roles, Personal Conflict, Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The current post identifies features of the Victim role and explores strategies for escaping this role. This draws upon the vicious cycle patterns addressed in a previous post, including Steven Karpman’s Persecutor – Victim – Rescuer cycle, cited in Games Alcoholics Play, by Claude Steiner. Most people are probably familiar enough with the Victim role so that it needs no introduction. If you haven’t fallen into that role yourself, you no doubt have encountered others who have. Or perhaps you have been cast in the complementary role of either the Oppressor or the Enabler in dealing with the Victim role. Of course, your familiarity with the subject won’t stop me from sharing my ideas about it.

Defining the Victim Role

The Victim role represents a particular response to suffering. This might be described through the questions, “Why is this happening to me, of all people?” and “What did I ever do to deserve this?” Implied in such questions is an assumption that life should be fair, and that we should get our just desserts without having to struggle for them. This sentiment is so common that Rabbi Harold Kushner wrote an entire book, Why Bad Things Happen to Good People, to address it.

The Victim Role in Relation to the Oppressor Role

While the Victim role is sometimes adopted in reaction to events such as illness, accidents, and natural disasters, more often it is a response to the actions of others who are seen as intentionally abusive or unjust. This frequently involves establishing relatively enduring interaction patterns between the Victim and the Oppressor, as discussed in my page, Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships 2.0. Below is a diagram illustrating a common interplay between the Victim and the Critic, a relatively benign variation on the Oppressor role.critic-victim-cycle1

Here, Victims view their Oppressors as powerful and controlling, and in turn see themselves as powerless, helpless, and hopeless. These perceptions often serve as self-fulfilling prophecies, as they encourage Victims to practice avoidant and accommodating styles of dealing with conflict in relationships. In the process, other styles for dealing with conflict get neglected, resulting in a deficit of assertiveness and conflict-resolution skills: if you don’t use it, you lose it. In turn, the lack of such skills makes one all the more vulnerable to oppression by others.

Self-empowerment as an Escape Plan

The above description of the Victim role suggests self-empowerment as a means for escaping the role. This typically involves a willingness to engage in conflict rather than avoiding it or capitulating to the demands of others. Commitment to this approach is only a start – empowerment requires working smarter, not just harder. Not only can we work toward mastering the different interpersonal conflict strategies, addressed in a previous post, but we can also develop our understanding of when each is appropriate. Just as in football, where each side runs different plays depending on the game’s circumstances and the anticipated play of the opponent, strategy counts in conflict resolution. Perseverance counts, too: note that wars have been won even when the majority of the battles have gone to the other side. It is prudent to choose our battles, and to retreat in order to fight another day.

Knowledge is Power

Holding our own in conflicts may well depend upon our understanding not only of our adversaries, but also of ourselves. By understanding our adversaries, their weaknesses as well as their strengths, we can better judge when and where to use leverage effectively, and when and how to propose compromises from a position of strength. Stephen Mitchell’s translation of the Tao Te Ching notes the risk of underestimating one’s adversaries, such as by viewing them as evil. Such a simplistic perspective may blind us to the complexity of their perspectives and motivations, thus placing us at a disadvantage. Perhaps an even more difficult challenge is understanding ourselves: the Gospels note Jesus observing how it is easier to spot the splinter in another’s eye than to see the beam in our own. It is also quite helpful to understand how our interpersonal styles interact with the styles with others. My webpage, Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships 2.0, explores how certain common roles tend to interact with one other in a vicious cycle pattern. It offers some general suggestions for escaping the vicious cycle roles, regardless of the particular role one has assumed.

Shifting the Balance of Fight vs. Flight

Once one understands various aspects of a conflict, one can then put this understanding into practice through active engagement with one’s adversary. Here the motivational factor is quite relevant, with anger and fear being basic emotions involved. Anger charges us up to confront our adversaries, while fear serves to mobilize us to flee to escape danger. In evolutionary terms, our biological system is wired for a Fight vs. Flight reaction, which is appropriate for survival in life-or-death situations, but is excessive for most conflicts in civilized society. As we become more knowledgeable and skillful in dealing with interpersonal conflict, we become better able to stand our ground and assert our claims. Here, intense fear and anxiety can get in the way of this process by supporting old patterns of avoidance and submission. Anger can serve to override our fears and mobilize our active engagement in conflict, yet its intensity can be disruptive to the processes of negotiation and conflict resolution. Like steel, anger must be tempered to be used effectively. One strategy to accomplish this involves the use of meditation or other relaxation techniques to reduce the intensity of emotions from “so mad you can’t see straight” to a more moderate level.

Challenging the Attitudes That Incite Impotent Rage

In confronting our anger, we should recognize that our anger can be incited to rage not only through our more primitive Fight vs. Flight reaction, but also through our more advanced thought processes. This issue is addressed in a previous post, When Thinking Distorts Feelings. The post also presents a strategy for challenging some of the attitudes and underlying assumptions that fuel the fire of emotions, often to the point of their being disruptive rather than helpful (hence the term, “impotent rage”). By putting our anger and anxiety into proper perspective, we are better able to assert ourselves, rather than either going ballistic with rage or capitulating to our adversaries out of fear.

Developing a Positive and Realistic Perspective

There are other attitudes and expectations that often discourage us from asserting ourselves effectively in conflict. For one thing, it is pretty common to get discouraged when we stumble in our efforts to assert ourselves. We may need to remind ourselves that we can expect to make mistakes as we are practicing our newly learned assertion skills. We can reassure ourselves that these are only failures if we give up on the process. Furthermore, it helps to recognize that we can learn more from our mistakes than we can from our successes, unless we are blaming ourselves too harshly. It is also reassuring to know that progress is seldom linear, with it often involving two or three steps forward, followed by one or two steps back. We may also need to give ourselves permission to choose our battles, so that we might “live to fight another day.” We can also console ourselves with the recognition that wars have been won even when most of the battles went to the other side. Strategic retreat can be a valuable tactic, as long as it does not turn into unconditional surrender. Unless we adopt these attitudes, we run the risk of falling into the Critic role with ourselves, thus becoming “our own worst critics.”

How Do You Spell Relief?

Dealing with conflict is often a stressful experience, and strategic retreats to gain temporary relief can be valuable for sustaining our efforts. Here it is important to distinguish healthy outlets from those that actually “recycle” stress by providing temporary relief while worsening the overall situation. The latter often involve activities such as abusing substances, gambling, compulsive shopping, pornography, and comfort eating. Even when these outlets are pursued for strategic retreat, their emotional numbing and distraction often result in unconditional surrender through subsequent avoidance of the conflict. Furthermore, these outlets often give the Critic more ammunition with which to judge and blame the Victim, thus placing the Victim at an even greater disadvantage. Healthier outlets are available, though, with these generally fall into the categories of relaxation, recreation, exercise, and expression.

The Victim Role in Relation to the Enabler Role

Thus far, the Victim role has been defined in relation to the Oppressor role and its variants, such as the Critic, the Persecutor, and the Abuser. The Victim role is also defined through its interaction with another interpersonal role, that of the Rescuer or the Enabler, with this pattern diagrammed below.victim-enabler-cycle

In this particular pattern, Victims express themselves through complaints about unfair conditions in their lives. They frequently seek out some tangible support or relief. This may not be explicitly stated, and often does not need to be, as Enablers are ready to volunteer support without even being asked for it. The sought-after relief may take many forms: provision of a safe haven, advocacy in defense of the Victims, mediation to resolve the conflict, protection from the wrath of Critics or Persecutors, concealment of mistakes, accidents, or wrongdoings, or completing the Victims’ responsibilities for them. While Enablers practice and develop their own assertion, advocacy, and communication skills in fulfilling these functions, Victims are relieved of this responsibility and thus fail to practice and develop these skills for themselves. This leaves them less competent and all the more dependent on the generous support of the Enablers, as well as more susceptible to the scorn of the Critics.

The Escape: “Please, I Need to Do This Myself”

It should be fairly obvious from the above discussion that one means of escaping the Victim role is to resist seeking support or relief from Rescuers, when we are capable of fulfilling these functions for ourselves. This also involves declining the unsolicited offers of those services, as well. That may require considerable self-discipline: why go through all that hassle when someone else will do it for us? This does not mean that we cannot accept someone’s support, as long as we retain responsibility for our position. Taking this approach provides the practice required to develop competence, earn credibility, and empower ourselves.

Complaints: Communication without Personal Vulnerability

In voicing their complaints to their Enablers, Victims often focus on external circumstances, rather than sharing their own personal experiences. In doing so, Victims claim the moral high ground in focusing on the abusive actions of the Critic, often without addressing their own shortcomings or the legitimacy of some of the Critic’s complaints. They often overlook their own passive-aggressive behavior, avoidance of conflict, and reluctance to challenge the Critic’s authority, all of which feed into the vicious cycle. By focusing on the faults of the Critics, Victims deflect attention from themselves, thus reducing the personal vulnerability involved in sharing their own anxieties, insecurities, and shame.

Beyond Complaining and into the Realm of Relating

We can escape the Victim mindset by sharing how we are feeling and doing, rather than just complaining about external events. This involves focusing on what is, rather than on what should or shouldn’t be. Being open about our fears and insecurities requires both humility and trust. Admitting our limitations may be humbling, but it helps to minimize the humiliation that comes with others recognizing our shortcomings before we acknowledge them. Opening up requires trust both in our confidantes and in ourselves: trust in the other to respect our feelings and honor our privacy, and trust in ourselves to cope effectively with those occasions when our confidantes lets us down in one way or another. While complaining about our situation may bring Enablers to our rescue, expressing our feelings is more likely to elicit compassion from our listeners. In the long run, being cared for is likely to be more beneficial than being taken care of. A further feature of open sharing is the experience of gratitude for the other’s compassionate presence. Not only can gratitude help us not to wallow in the role of Victim, but it can also encourage our confidantes to feel appreciated for their compassion. This, in turn, could help to discourage the confidantes from assuming an Enabler role that is detrimental to our growth. All of these developments help to shift the emphasis of the relationship from using the other for our own needs to that of relating to one another.

Emotional Intimacy Is a Two-way Street

Note that relating to one another is a two-way street. This requires the willingness to listen to others as they recount their struggles, as well as sharing our own. This in itself can be quite helpful for stepping out of the Victim role, as we can come to realize that our own struggle with oppression is not all that special. Furthermore, we may be inspired by hearing others’ accounts of how they overcame instances of abuse, neglect, or unfair treatment. Another benefit is in feeling good about ourselves for our compassionate listening to another’s plight. Yet perhaps the most valuable impact is the development of emotional intimacy, as both we and others allow ourselves to be vulnerable in sharing our personal struggles, which allows for compassion and gratitude for one another.

Dealing with Conflict in Relationships: The Art of Assertiveness

Personal Conflict, , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.