E I I

Managing Conflict through

Communication

Ruth Anna Abigail

Azusa Pacific University

Dudley D. Cahn
State University ofNew York, New Paltz

Reproduced digitally ABIGAIL, RUTH ANNA; CAHN, DUDLEY D.,

MANAGING CONFLICT THROUGH COMMUNICATION, 4th Ed.,© 2011.
Reprinted by permission of Pearson Education, Inc. New York, New
York.

Allyn & Bacon

Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York San Francisco Upper Saddle River
Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai London Madrid Milan Munich
Paris Montreal Toronto Delhi Mexico City Sao Paulo Sydney
Hong Kong Seoul Singapore Taipei Tokyo
Acquisitions Editor: Jeanne Zalesky
Assistant Editor: Megan Lentz
Marketing Manager: Wendy Gordon
Editorial Production Service:
Production Manager: Fran Russello
Manager, Visual Research: Beth Brenzel
Manager, Rights and Permissions: Zina Arabia
Image Permission Coordinator: Kathy Gavilanes
Manager, Cover Visual Research & Permissions: Karen Sanatar
Full-Service Project Management: Shiji Sashi/Integra Software Services Pvt Ltd
Art Director: Jayne Conte
Cover Designer: Bruce Kenselaar
Printer/Binder: Courier Companies, Inc.

Credits and acknowledgments bon-owed from other sources and reproduced, with permission, in this textbook
appear on appropriate page within text

Copyright© 2011 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Allyn & Bacon, 75 Arlington Street, Suite 300,
Boston, MA 02116. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. This publication is
protected by Copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited
reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or likewise. To obtain permission(s) to use material from this work, please submit a
written request to Pearson Higher Education, Rights and Contracts Department, 501 Boylston Street, Suite 900,
Boston, MA 02116, or fax your request to 617-671-3447.

Many of the designations by manufacturers and seller to distinguish their products are claimed as trademarks.
Where those designations appear in this book, and the publisher was aware of a trademark claim, the
designations have been printed in initial caps or all caps.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Abigail, Ruth Anna.

Managing conflict through communication/Ruth Anna Abigail, Dudley D. Cahn.-4th ed.
p. cm.
Rev. ed. of: Managing conflict through communication/Dudley D. Cahn,
Ruth Anna Abigail. 3rd ed.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN-13: 978-0-205-68556-l (alk. paper)
ISBN-10: 0-205-68556-0 (alk. paper)
1. Conflict (Psychology) 2. Interpersonal conflict. 3. Conflict management.
I. Cahn, Dudley D. Managing conflict through communication. II. Title.
BF637.I48L85 2011
303.6-dc22
2009048323

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - CRS - 13 12 11 10 09

Allyn & Bacon

is an imprint of

ISBN-10: 0-205-68556-0
www.pearsonhighered.com ISBN-13: 978-0-205-68556-l
 E 2

A Process View of Conflict

OBJECTIVES
At the end of this chapter, you should be able to:
• Name and explain the five stages or phases of • Explain the steps in the avoidance cycle, chilling eff­
constructive, successful conflict. ect, competitive escalation cycle, and violence cycle
• Identify the stages in a specific conflict that you • List and explain the six steps to effective
experienced. confrontation

KEY TERMS
argument imagined interaction schismogenesis
chilling effect initiation phase scripts
competitive argument informational reception self-talk
competitive escalation cycle apprehension triggering event
confrontation physical aggression undesired repetitive pattern
confrontation steps prelude to conflict (URP)
confrontation avoidance cycle process verbal aggression/abuse
cycle process view of conflict violence cycle
differentiation phase resolution phase

In Chapter 1, we defined conflict as a kind of communication process within which a

problematic situation with certain characteristics arises. We defined conflict management
as the behavior a person employs based on his or her analysis of a conflict situation. All
communication is processual; conflict is a kind of communication situation that has
particular characteristics, which, if not handled effectively, can make an interpersonal
relationship problematic and even end a relationship.
Two key terms for our consideration now are situation and behavior. Both are
embedded in a series of instances that follow one another (as in a video of people meeting,
talking, and departing). Such a view of reality is, as Thomas argued, "concerned with the

20
 CH APTER 2 A Process View of Conflict 21

influence of each event upon the following events." 1 When we learn to take this view, we
begin to see situations as phases or stages, reflecting a switch to a process orientation. If
the series continues to repeat itself (like a perpetual motion machine), it becomes a cycle.
A process view of conflict sees conflicts as a series of stages. In some cases. conflicts
become cycles because they get bogged down in particular stages and repeat themselves.
Understanding conflict as a process subject to destructive cycles helps us to identify the
behaviors that make conflict destructive, and, it is hoped, choose behaviors that will keep
the conflict from becoming so.
In this chapter, we explore the process model of conflict and demonstrate how choices
made in different stages of the conflict may contribute to productive or destructive outcomes.
Our purpose here is not only to identify the stages through which many conflicts progress but
also to suggest some of the behaviors that contribute to successful resolution of conflict and
other behaviors that either go nowhere or cause the conflict to turn violent.

PROCESSES IN GENERAL

What does it mean to take a process view of something? A process is dynamic, ongoing,
and continuous (not static, at rest, or fixed). It is evolutionary in nature. Viewing objects.
people, events, and social situations as processes means that we understand:

1. Processes have stages or phases of development through growth or deterioration.

2. They have a history in which a distinctive pattern emerges.
3. They consist of continual change over time.
4. They have ingredients that interact (affect one another) that may or may not lead to
the next stage (depending on the ingredients).
5. At any given point in time and space, they represent some outcome, stage, or state of
being (like a picture or a single frame in a film).

The way we talk about something often fails to reflect a process view-such as "the
happy couple," "a divorced person," or "an ex-convict"-which suggests that people do not
change, are not at one stage of a developing life cycle or relationship, or do not learn from their
experiences and grow. We forget that communication is a process when we focus on simply
getting our message understood by others without trying to see their point of view, adapting to
it, and cocreating meaning. Failing to see a conflict as a process explains why some people are
not interested in learning how to manage it. So, we don't take a process view:

• when we see something as unchanging (e.g., he was a naughty child, so he is probably a

problem adult),
• when we see something as having no history (e.g., nothing in your past is important or
affects you today),
• when we see something at its present age only and not as a stage in development (e.g.,
you will always be this way and never change), or
• when we do not consider the ingredients that make up something (e.g., you do not
consider how your goals, fears, and abilities, others' expectations of you, and your
deadlines or time limits interact to create how you view yourself).
22 PA RT I Managing the Conflict Process

A process view of conflict, on the other hand, sees the conflict situation as
dynamic, changeable, and moving toward some end. We know that resolving conflict
does not end conflict forever, however much we might want that to be the case. We will
engage in conflict again and again, and we have a pretty good idea how these conflicts
unfold.

PATTERNS AND CYCLES IN CONSTRUCTIVE CONFLICT PROCESSES

As depicted in Figure 2.1, a process view suggests that a successfully resolved conflict
moves through a series of five recognizable stages, steps, or phases, with each stage
affecting the next: the prelude to conflict (known as the frustration or latent stage in
some theories), the triggering event (a behavior that at least one person in the conflict

Prelude to .; ••••),- •••••• Triggering

conflict event

Differentiation
phase

FIGURE 2.1 A Process View of Conflict. The process view of

conflict assumes that all we have experienced prior to a particular
conflict forms the group for the conflict we are cuITently experi­
encing. Prior experiences comprise the prelude to the conflict.
A triggering event causes us to perceive that we are in a conflict
with another person. After a triggering event, we (or the other
person) will initiate the conflict through nonverbal means
(withdrawal, silence, slamming doors, etc.) or verbal means ("we
need to talk"). The differentiation phase includes working out the
conflict, including the identification of the issue and feelings about
it. The resolution phase includes the outcome to the conflict and
becomes part of the prelude to the next conflict experienced.
 C H A PT E R 2 A Process View of Conflict 23

points to as the "beginning" of the problem), the initiation phase (where at least one
person makes known to the other the presence of a felt conflict), the differentiation
phase (where the participants work out the problem using various strategies and
tactics), and the resolution phase (where those involved agree to some outcome to the
conflict).
The prelude to conflict consists of the variables that make conflict possible between
those involved. The prelude comprises four variables:

• the participants in the conflict situation (number, age, sex, etc.)

• the relationship between them (which may vary in closeness and distribution of power)
and their conflict history
• other interested parties to the conflict (including bystanders)
• the physical and social environment of the conflict situation.

In the prelude to conflict, the potential for manifest conflict exists because of the people
involved and the other social and physical factors that define the situation. Like the first block
in a line of dominoes, these variables affect the course of conflict.
The triggering event or conflict stimulus is a behavior that at least one person in the
conflict points to as the "beginning" of the problem. Examples include saying something
upsetting, doing something offensive, breaking a relationship rule, or not doing something
one is expected to do by others. An important point to understand about triggering events
is that the parties involved don't always point to the same behavior as the trigger for the
conflict. The events that trigger a conflict for two people may be removed in time. For
example, you may have experienced some long-term dissatisfaction with the way your
roommate leaves his or her clothes and objects all over the house. For you the trigger of
your conflict is the roommate's messiness. You finally say something to the other person
and, in doing so, trigger a conflict for her or him about the other's perception of you
as controlling. For that person a conflict exists in which the trigger is your attempt to
influence her or his behavior. While you both are experiencing one conflict episode, the
behavior that each of you .see as the trigger to it is sometimes different. Having said that,
we often engage in conflicts where the parties can agree on the trigger. For example, a
daughter comes home after her cmfew and her parents confront her about it. Both might
agree in this case that she should have come home on time. So, sometimes the parties can
agree that a particular event triggered the conflict.
The initiation phase or response occurs when the conflict becomes overt. This
happens when at least one person makes known to the other that a conflict exists, such
as reacting to another's upsetting comment, pointing out the offensive nature of the other's
behavior, calling attention to the breaking of a relationship rule, or reminding the other that
she or he is expected to do something the person is not doing.
The differentiation phase or ongoing interaction pattern occurs when the partici­
pants use constructive or destructive strategies and tactics, presenting both sides of the
story, moving back and forth, and escalating and de-escalating. Lasting anywhere from a
few minutes to days or even weeks, this is the stage where the conflict becomes quite
obvious to everyone. Although parties may view the open disagreement as "the conflict,"
from a communication point of view, the revelation of differences is the fourth stage in the
interpersonal conflict process.
24 PA RT I Managing the Conflict Process

This phase serves a useful purpose by allowing both parties to explain how they see
the situation that gives rise to conflict and what they want to happen as a result of the
conflict. Sometimes, only one participant wants to address the conflict; the other person
avoids confronting the issues. The relationship, the conflict history of the participants,
and their preferred styles in doing conflict all act as ingredients that affect how the
conflict proceeds.
The resolution phase or outcome occurs when those involved agree to some
outcome to the conflict. Thus, we argue that a successful conflict results in a win-win
outcome, where the participants are unlikely to have to deal with the issue again.
Resolution is a probable outcome when the agreement satisfies all concerned. If the con­
flict is resolved, then a decision has been made by the parties to end the disagreement, and
they are both satisfied with the outcome. Alternatively, a win-win outcome can be a kind
of issue management, where the participants have decided that the issue is settled for the
time being while recognizing that it may arise again in the future.
Win-lose or lose-lose outcomes occur at earlier stages of the conflict cycle, as a
result of people entering into the negative conflict cycles described in the next section.
In this textbook, we argue that conflict management may result in resolution or it may not.
When it results in resolution the outcome is an agreement that satisfies all concerned.
In other cases, the best decision may be to accommodate or avoid confrontation for reasons
discussed in previous chapters. In all of these cases, one is managing the conflict process.
One manages the conflict process whether the conflict is resolved satisfactorily or not.
Regardless of the outcome reached, the way in which a conflict is managed will
affect the way future conflicts are resolved or managed between the affected parties. Thus,
we illustrate the conflict process as a cycle, where the resolution or management of one
conflict becomes part of the prelude of the next conflict. At this point, we are focusing on
a constructive conflict situation in which an incident progresses through stages until
successfully resolved.
When people are able to bring their conflicts to successful resolution, it reinforces
positive thinking about conflict. Each successfu 1 conflict we engage in increases the
chances that future conflicts are productive, becau<;e we learn that conflict isn't dreadful
and something we must avoid.
In examining the process model of conflict, you should realize that we have recast
the event we call "conflict" as a process in order to examine in more detail the series of
steps or stages from beginning to end. However, like fingerprints, not all conflicts are
exactly alike. Some may follow the five-step sequence of events faster or slower, and there
is often an uneven distribution of time within the model. For example, the prelude to
conflict may occur over several months and the actual overt manifestations of conflict
happen in a matter of minutes, or vice versa.
Moreover, as we show in the next section, from a process perspective, an unsuccess­
ful conflict is one that becomes diverted at one of the stages. A conflict may begin to
progress through the phases and stop, or it may return to a previous stage when new issues
are introduced and added to the conflict. As in examining any communication event, the
model may illuminate, but it may also distort our expectations. The model is used for
explanation and analysis, not as a Procrustean bed into which all conflicts must fit exactly. 2
The following are a few examples of how successfully managed conflicts proceed through
the five stages.
 C HAP TE R 2 A Process View of Conflict 25

Example 1
Prelude. For the first time in about two weeks, my dad, brother, and I were all in the
same place at the same time. We went to dinner together, giving us our first chance in
weeks to talk together. We had just ordered dinner when the inevitable question came
up. What am I going to do after I graduate? When the question came up this time, I had
an answer. I told him about the progress I had made in job contacts and other possibil­
ities I was considering. I especially wanted to travel during the summer with a sports
team as a sports information director, but I had made no specific plans. Pop asked if
I had sent in my application yet. I said that I hadn't.
Trigger. My older brother, Stuart, chimed in that I'd better do it soon. This is when
the conflict started. The tone in Stuart's voice was what set me off. He was using a
condescending attitude toward me, which I hate.
Initiation. I told him that it was none of his business; that he need not tell me what
to do.
Differentiation. Stuart got mad, as usual, and told me that I was interpreting the sit­
uation wrong. He basically told me that I shouldn't feel the way I do because they were
only showing that they care. This rubbed me the wrong way because I've had enough of
people telling me how I should feel. I tried to explain how I felt but was interrupted sev­
eral times with the response that I was wrong to feel that way. I told him that I thought
I was being more than fair in telling my family my plans and feelings.
Resolution. At this point, my father intervened and made us both apologize to each
other for making such a scene. We did and moved on to other topics that were safer to
discuss.

Example 2
Prelude. Our daughter is not a morning person. My husband is one, but I am
usually the one who drags her out of bed for school. The other morning I was
having a hard time waking up, and I didn't worry too much about it because my
husband was up and I didn't have to get up early. I finally got up just before my
daughter had to leave.
Trigger. My husband remarked "I got Jenny up for you." That really irritated me,
because when he says that it sounds like taking care of our daughter is a favor he does
me instead of an obligation we both have.
Initiation. I remarked that it really bothered me when he said that.
Differentiation. He said that he realized that it would be easier for all concerned if
he got her up this morning. I said I didn't like the way he said it.
Resolution. He apologized and said he didn't mean it the way it sounded. He
appreciated that I always got her up. He was just trying to reassure me that I didn't
have to worry about getting Jenny to school. I told him I appreciated being reas­
sured but really needed to believe we were in this together. He agreed, and we
dropped it.
26 PA RT I Managing the Conflict Process

PATTERNS AND CYCLES IN DESTRUCTIVE CONFLICT PROCESSES

Communication scholars often look for patterns of interaction, both functional and dysfunc­
tional. Viewing conflict as a process has led to the identification of the above five stages,
which represent a functional pattern of interaction because the conflicts are resolved in a
mutually satisfactory way. A process view also suggests that dysfunctional conflicts are not
successfully resolved. They fail to move through the same five recognizable stages, steps, or
phases characteristic of successfully resolved conflicts, and they enter destructive cycles of
their own. After starting with the prelude phase, they are diverted at one of the subsequent
stages: the triggering event or stimulus, the initiation phase or response, the differentiation
phase or ongoing interaction pattern, or the resolution phase or a constructive outcome.
As we think about conflicts as processes with recognizable phases, it's important to con­
sider them in the context of the many routine activities we pe1form. For example, you proba­
bly arise about the same time each day, have a breakfast similar to the one from the day before,
put on your clothes in the same order, and walk or drive to classes or work using the same
route as always. Sometimes routines are nearly unconscious behaviors. Routinized events are
scripts that we perform with little deviation each time we do them. People repeat similar be­
haviors each time they encounter the event. Without scripted events, it is more difficult getting
through the day. Imagine having to make a new decision for each choice that confronts you!
The unfortunate truth, though, is that sometimes our conflict behavior becomes scripted.
Conflicts that become scripted behavior are what Cronen and colleagues call an
undesired repetitive pattern (URP), 3 or the feeling of being trapped in a set of circum­
stances beyond one's control. Those involved in URPs can have automatic, "knee-jerk"
responses to one another: Something one of them says triggers an automatic response in
the other, and the episode quickly escalates out of control. It happens when those involved
have a pretty good idea of what the other is going to say next, or at least they think they
do. URPs recur, are unwanted, and generally occur regardless of the topic or situation.
Those in the URP have a feeling that the pattern is hard, if not impossible, to avoid.
URPs sometimes have an escalation effect, in which the exchanges between those
involved gets increasingly intense. Schismogenesis (the escalation of the cycle) occurs
when the behaviors of one person intensify the behaviors of another person. 4
Schismogenesis is complementary in nature when the exchanges balance each other
(e.g., as one person becomes more dominant, the other becomes more submissive; as one
person shows off, the other becomes more admiring, which leads to more exhibitionism).
Schismogenesis is symmetrical when each person tries to outdo the other's behavior.
Seeking revenge often leads to symmetrical schismogenesis, as blood feuds escalate
through retaliation after retaliation.
The belief that conflicts are cyclical has led to the identification of two common
dysfunctional conflict cycles:

• the confrontation avoidance cycle (including the "chilling effect")

• the competitive conflict escalation cycle (including the violence cycle)

A key point is that issues are not resolved in either of these cycles, which stem ifi large
part from the attitudes people have about conflict and from the way those attitudes are
validated by their conflict behavior.
 C H A PT E R 2 A Process View of Conflict 27

The Confrontation Avoidance Cycle and the "Chilling Effect"

The first of the dysfunctional conflict cycles is confrontation avoidance, which is depicted
in Figure 2.2. Chapter 1 noted that the bulk of conflict management advice is slanted
toward open conflict or confrontation, largely because people would rather avoid it alto­
gether. But we now know that not every conflict requires engagement. Some issues are bet­
ter left alone. Either they are unimportant or they may take too much time and energy to
deal with constructively. However, as we begin our discussion of this dysfunctional cycle,
we are saying that some people tend to avoid confrontation with most everyone and with
most issues. We are not talking about a single instance of parties avoiding a conflict, but
rather a pattern that an individual displays in responding to conflict.
The confrontation avoidance cycle is characteristic of those people whose first
impulse is to avoid initiating conflict or to quickly withdraw when conflicts arise. This type
of conflict management style is similar to the communication styles of shyness or reticence
because it occurs across situations and people. Typically, unsuccessful conflict management
becomes mired down in one of the first four stages of conflict. The confrontation avoidance
cycle is typical of a conflict that doesn't progress past stage two. It is at the choice-making
portion of the initiation stage that people often get stuck in an avoidance cycle. When one
sees confrontation in general as something to avoid, she or he can easily decide to avoid the

We think of
conflict as bad
·····
-~ '•
·~
We handle
it poorly
We get nervous
about a conflict
we're experiencing

~
~

The conflict gets .•

out of control and it
must be confronted ~
, ...... We avoid it as
long as possible

FIGURE 2.2 The Confrontation Avoidance Cycle. The cycle begins

with the belief that conflict is something that we should avoid if at all
possible. Because we would like to avoid conflict, experiencing one
makes us nervous. Generally, something that makes us nervous is
something we put off. Unfortunately, many issues worsen when left
alone, so eventually we have to confront them. Our anxiety causes us
to handle the conflict badly. Our negative perception of conflict is
confirmed, and the cycle starts again.
28 PA RT I Managing the Conflict Process

cmTent confrontation. If one cannot avoid this particular confrontation, the person who gen­
erally avoids confrontation has his or her negative perceptions reinforced when conflict is
finally addressed after it has gotten beyond the stage where productive resolution is possible.
In a confrontation avoidance cycle, a conflict has a prelude stage (e.g., one or more of
the participants has a past history of poorly managing conflicts), followed by a stage two
triggering event (e.g., one partner forgets an important date), but instead of progressing to
stage three, initiation, the offended individual does not initiate the conflict because she or
he prefers to avoid most confrontations. Either the conflict isn't resolved, which hurts the
relationship, or issues build up until one eventually erupts, resulting in a mismanaged con­
flict. This is reinforcing because the pain associated with the previous conflict discourages
one or both partners from wanting to address future issues.
Probably the most widespread misassumption about conflict, and the one that has the
greatest chance of creating a confrontation avoidance cycle, is the notion that conflict is
abnormal. People who experience conflict want to end it as soon as possible so that their
lives can "return to normal"-harmony being the norm. The truth is that both excessive
conflict and excessive harmony are abnormal. Harmony and conflict are processes in life;
people move back and forth between them. Harmony in a relationship is desirable, but it
does not allow growth because it does not allow change. Rummel noted that "the desire to
eradicate conflict, the hope for harmony and universal cooperation, is the wish for a frozen,
unchanging world with all relationships fixed in their patterns-with all in balance." 5 This
misassumption affects the way people approach the study of conflict management. They
are motivated to learn about conflict so they can do it better, and faster; their motivation is
not to gain a true understanding of the process while they are in it.
Related to the notion that conflicts are abnormal is the idea that conflicts are patholog­
ical: They are symptoms of a system that is functioning incorrectly. Some conflicts are
indeed pathological. We have all had the experience of observing people who continued a ·
conflict long after it made any sense to do so. For the most pmt though, conflict is a sign that
a system (an interpersonal relationship, a task group, or an organization) is functioning well
and testing itself to make sure the boundaries are clear and understandable to those involved.
Another misassumption, perpetuated by numerous popular writings on conflict man­
agement, focuses on reducing or avoiding confrontation. Some people avoid conflict as
long as they can, and therefore the problem continues.
At the risk of oversimplification, one could identify two basic approaches to conflict
interaction-confronting and avoiding-although people may do both in different
relationships. When dealing with an avoider, one may have to heighten the avoider's
awareness of the conflict so that it is impossible to ignore. For example, a newly married
couple may have different expectations about how to account for their whereabouts to the
other. The wife may frequently leave the house without indicating a destination or return
time. The more conscientious husband indicates that such behavior is worrisome but gets
little response from his wife. Were he to copy his wife's behavior for a few days, she might
realize how inconsiderate her behavior is. Communicating one's needs to the other is not
necessarily the most effective way to resolve a conflict if the other does not understand the
negative aspects of the behavior involved.
Roloff and Ifert claim that confrontation avoidance can serve useful purposes, as
long as it eliminates arguing and does no damage to the relationship. 6 Sometimes,
avoidance in the present allows for the reintroduction of a difficult topic at a later time. 7
 C H A PT E R 2 A Process View of Conflict 29

However, if any participant in the conflict feels that leaving the issue unresolved is more
costly than confrontation, avoidance is potentially destructive. 8
In some cases, spouses have learned in their marriages that they are better off avoid­
ing some conflicts. In Bill's case, presented below, avoidance is around a particular issue,
but not a general habit for the couple.

Prelude. This is a second marriage for both of us, and my wife brought three kids
with her. Her oldest daughter seems really wacky to me.
Trigger. Her daughter's nutty behavior is a problem. Last week, she telephoned her
boyfriend who is in Europe and ran up a $300 telephone bill. However, I don't comment on
it, even though it is getting worse. I feel that it is not worth creating a scene.

There was no initiation stage (or differentiation or resolution), because Bill chose to
avoid confronting his wife or her daughter. Thus, the issue is unresolved and may continue
for years to come. Interestingly, this avoidance behavior is more typical of husbands than
of wives in marital relationships. 9
A special case of avoidance is called the chilling effect, in which one person in a
relationship withholds grievances from the other, usually due to fear of the other person's
reaction. 10 This cycle is presented visually in Figure 2.3. People are likely to avoid conflict
in low-commitment relationships, whereas in strong, committed relationships, conflict is
more spontaneous and emotional. 11 Research indicates that a chilling effect is likely to
occur when the other person appears to have attractive alternatives to the relationship with
the withholder and when the other's commitment to the withholder seems weak. If you are

... :y Fear of the effects

Decreased
of the conflict on the
commitment
relationship

;;:.
~
Death of the
relationship
~
:
~
..
Decreased level 4,···· Feeling conflict
of communication is not worth effort

FIGURE 2.3 The Chilling Effect in Conflict. The chilling effect begins with
the perception that conflict has negative effects. This fear leads us to belief
that conflict is not worth the effort it would take to enact. When conflicts are
avoided, however, other types of communication in the relationship decrease.
A decrease in communication often leads to a decrease in commitment to the
relationship. After several cycles of decreased communication and decreased
commitment, we may simply cycle out of the relationship altogether.
30 PA RT I Managing the Conflict Process

worried that your friend does not care much about you and that your friend could easily
leave the relationship, you are not likely to tell your friend when you have a grievance.
Conversely, if you are not worried about my leaving because I have no alternatives and
care about you, you are more likely to express your dislikes and desires. You have nothing
to fear from conflict. 12
A milder version of the chilling effect occurs when one avoids confronting another
because she or he feels powerless to do so. 13 In stronger cases, even committed partners,
who are sometimes trapped in abusive relationships, fear confrontation with their partners.
The chilling effect is different from the avoidance cycle in that it exists only between two
people rather than with everyone in general and includes an element of fear (afraid of the
other or afraid of losing the other).
The chilling effect shows how unsuccessful conflict becomes mired down in one of
the first four stages. In this case, the conflict has a prelude stage (e.g., one or more of the
participants has reason to fear the reaction of the other person based on a past history of
abuse during conflict), followed by a stage two triggering event (e.g., one partner does
something that upsets the other), but instead of progressing to the stage three initiation (or
later stages), the offended individual does not initiate the conflict because he or she again
fears the outcome.
The chilling effect focuses on the negative aspects of the other person that irritate or
anger the withholder. These negative aspects become areas of perceived incompatibility
and evolve into ongoing conflicts. Sometimes the withholder describes the conflict to
friends or other third parties but does not confront the irritating person; therefore the con­
flicts remain unexpressed. Generally, the withholder does not confront the other because of
fear of damaging the relationship. However, a chilling effect is negative in desirable, ongo­
ing relationships because it puts communication barriers between those involved, which
undermines the relationship and mutual happiness for the partners.
There are two ways to respond to a threatening partner. First, in cases where one
merely lacks the habit of asserting oneself, one may overcome this fear and learn to stand
up to the other person, but this is not possible in cases where the partner is stronger,
meaner, and better equipped to abuse. Second, people caught in controlling, abusive rela­
tionships have to seek outside help (usually the police, courts, or other authorities). The
best time to counter abuse is the first time it happens, because after that it becomes more
difficult to take action against it.

The Competitive Escalation and Violence Cycles

Another dysfunctional conflict cycle is the competitive escalation cycle, in which the
conflict bogs down in the differentiation stage when competitive interests lead to diver­
gence rather than integration. Figure 2.4 illustrates this cycle. 14
In this cycle, the participants are so concerned with winning that they are unable to
respond to integrative messages, if indeed those messages even make it into the conflict
interaction. Consider this example:

Prelude. I already knew where my favorite blouse was-it was in my sister's room.
She seems to have this habit of borrowing whatever she wants without my permission.
I went into her room and ...
 CH APT E R 2 A Process View of Conflict 31

Loser has another

unresolved ....,,,.. ····· Unresolved
grievances
conflict

·~
.. ~

Perception of
One person wins
conflict

~·
:
Competitive
messages reflect
right/wrong
··".·•· ..(····· thinking

FIGURE 2.4 The Competitive Escalation Cycle. This cycle is fueled by

previously unresolved grievances that color the perception of the current
conflict. The conflict is initiated with competitive messages that indicate an
"I'm right-you 're wrong" stance on the part of the initiator. The cycle is
intensified when the other responds with a win-lose orientation as well.
The outcome is generally that one person wins, and the other loses. The
person who has lost has another unresolved grievance that will affect future
conflicts.

Trigger. Under her bed was where I found my blouse. I was so angry that I had
KILL written on my forehead. I went searching for my sister throughout the house, like a
lion searches for its prey. When I found her ...
Initiation. I brought up all the past times that she had taken something from me
without permission, and then I accused her of "stealing" my blouse.
Differentiation. She started screaming at me, and I called her a kleptomaniac.
Neither of us was trying to de-escalate the conflict. She stormed off to her bedroom and I
went to mine. We haven't spoken for two days. But like past occmTences, we will eventually
get over it. At least until something like this happens again!
Resolution-there was none.

In this narrative, you can see how the cycle operates. One sister has unresolved
grievances concerning the borrowing of clothes, and it affects the way she views the
current emerging conflict. As she communicates her anger about having her clothes
borrowed, she not only talks about this incident but all the past grievances as well, reflect­
ing the belief that she is in the right and her sister is in the wrong. As it might be expected,
32 PA RT I Managing the Conflict Process

the sister also takes a right/wrong position and yells back. One person has the sense that he
or she has won (typically, the one who walks out first), and the other person feels as though
he or she has lost, creating yet another grievance that will color the perception of future
conflicts.
We need not fall into this pattern. Conflicting parties may view an argument
either as a rational exchange of claims about some ideas or as a competition. When we
take the first view, we may argue about politicians, politics, whether a movie is worth
seeing, whether being a vegetarian is reasonable, and so on. Life gives us many opportu­
nities to express our opinions by stating claims and offering reasons for making those
claims. Many of us find people who are reluctant to express an opinion to be boring. On
the other hand, an argument becomes competitive when one person's desire to express an
opinion becomes a need to win an argument without space for anyone else's opinion
to receive equal consideration. A controlling partner who always has to win arguments
uses conflicts to serve his or her personal needs. Competitive argument occurs when
one has a desire to win no matter what harm it does to a relationship. It becomes prob­
lematic when one can't take losing or "never loses" an argument. We are turned off by
either type. It is no fun engaging in conflict with them. In extreme cases, competition has
the potential to adversely affect the relationship, if either person finds the competition
upsetting.
A special case of competitive escalation is the violence cycle, as illustrated in
Figure 2.5. The degree of violence can range from relatively minor (verbal threats, threat­
ening gestures) to outrageous acts of physical abuse, torture, and bodily harm. Violence
involves harming another person physically, emotionally, or mentally. For example, a
couple may start by disagreeing over where to place fruits and vegetables in the
refrigerator ("they should go over here"; "no they should go there"), but escalate into
verbal aggression/abuse (insults, name calling, and the like), 15 and may even wind up
screaming and throwing objects. The conflict may end here unresolved and leaving a bad
memory. In Figure 2.5, we illustrate this with a dotted line. In some cases, verbal abuse
may escalate into physical aggression, when one or both parties physically attack the
other as the continuation of arrows in Figure 2.5 depict. We should point out that commu­
nication scholars are quite concerned about such interpersonal behaviors. 16 Verbal abuse
and physical aggression are not recommended and often characterize problematic rela­
tionships in need of help, although the partners may not think so.
Both competitive escalation and violence cycles are all too common occunences that
show how an unsuccessful conflict becomes mired down in the fourth stage-differentiation.
Here, the conflict has a prelude stage (e.g., one or more of the participants has a past
history of poorly managing conflicts), followed by a stage two, triggering event (e.g., one
person takes something he or she shouldn't or a partner forgets an important date). The
conflict moves through stage three, initiation, but gets mired down in stage four, differen­
tiation, instead of progressing to the final stage, resolution. Like the preceding three
destrnctive cycles, the resulting process takes on quite a form that is different from that of
a successfully resolved conflict.
Pruitt and Rubin argue that competition in a conflict creates a pattern of interac­
tion that intensifies the competition and the desire to outdo the other. Whereas the
competition may start with friendly banter, later moves become more unfriendly,
 C HAP TE R 2 A Process View of Conflict 33

Perception of
conflict colored , • •.,-.. •• ••• Triggering
by past event
experiences

Conflict is Conflict escalated

stopped but .(,... \ ...... ... ... ..... ... in verbally
not resolved aggressive manner

"r.-:
·· .. ....
Conflict escalates
into physical
violence

FIGURE 2.5 The Violence Cycle. A special case of competitive conflict

escalation is the violence cycle. The degree of violence can range from rela­
tively minor (verbal threats, threatening gestures) to outrageous acts of physi­
cal abuse, torture, and bodily harm. Violence cycles begin with perceptions of
unresolved conflict that color the perception of a cutTent triggering event.
A cycle may begin in disagreement but escalate into verbal aggression and/or
abuse. The conflict may end here, unresolved and leaving a bad memory­
illustrated with a dotted line. In some cases, verbal abuse may escalate into
physical aggression, when one or both parties physically attack the other as
the continuation of arrows depict. At some point, the conflict is stopped, either
by the participants themselves or by a third party, but such behavior results in
unresolved grievances that fuel the next cycle.

increasing the number of issues in the conflict. As issues are introduced, the conflict is
less likely to focus on a particular issue and is more likely to result in an irritating uni­
versal level such as "You're always bugging me." Moreover, although the conflict may
have started with one person's desire to simply win, this desire is distorted into a desire
to win coupled with a desire to hurt the other with the loss. More parties may become
involved as the conflict escalates. The most difficult part about this process, though, is
the fact that each competitive move makes it more and more difficult for those in the
conflict to de-escalate because they see it as "backing down." 17 In the case of the
violence cycle, one person forces his or her own decision down the throat of the other
person, leaving that individual dissatisfied with the outcome. The issue will continue to
fester because it was not resolved in a mutually satisfying way. If angry enough, the
34 PA RT I Managing the Conflict Process

other will turn to vengeful acts to get even or to passive-aggressive behavior to get his
or her way.
There are a number of behaviors that contribute to the escalation of a conflict, cause
it to get out of hand, and perhaps lead to violence. We refer to these in Figure 2.5 as
escalatory behavior:

• talking louder; yelling

• standing up
• getting into the other's face, space invasion
• making a threatening gesture (fist, finger)
• pushing/shoving/poking with finger/hitting
• swearing/cursing
• attacking the other's face with insults, name calling, putdowns, racial/ethnic
slurs, etc.
• disconfirming the other
• making verbal threats
• pushing sensitive buttons (i.e., bringing up unrelated sensitive issues)
• increasing competition and encouraging rivalry
• damaging the other's possessions
• mocking the other
• shutting the other out or walking away
• being egged on by bystanders

THE CONFRONTATION PROCESS: SIX STEPS TO SUCCESSFUL

INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION

As you have discovered by reading about conflict processes, it is regrettably too easy for
conflicts to spin off into destructive cycles. In this section, we describe a series of steps for
effective confrontation, which can help you to get through your conflict without, it is
hoped, diverging into a destructive cycle.
We begin by defining confrontation as a conflict process in which the parties call
attention to problems or issues and express their feelings, beliefs, and wants to one another.
So, if a neighbor's barking dog upsets you and could lead to significant deterioration in
your relationship, then you are engaging in interpersonal confrontation when you consider
the problem or issue, arrange to meet with the neighbor, tell him or her about the problem,
observe the other's feedback, come to some sort of understanding, and reevaluate the
outcome at some future date. Obviously, assertiveness plays a role in interpersonal
confrontation. While assertiveness is the ability to speak up for one's interests, concerns, or
rights in a way that does not violate or interfere with those of others, confrontation is
viewed in this chapter as a conflict process event that involves dynamic interaction
between the parties involved. Thus, confrontation involves a series of steps of which
assertiveness is only one.
Because of the potential benefits, we need to know how to effectively confront
others about conflicts that eat away our relationship. We handle many of our everyday
conflicts with little pomp and circumstance. If you are able to address a problem as it
 C H A PT E R 2 A Process View of Conflict 35

happens, a simple, "You know, it bothers me when you do that" may draw the other per­
son's attention to the behavior and result in an agreement to stop or modify it. When
problems are more complex, we need a plan for conflict management.
There are six confrontation steps to move through as you manage a conflict with
another person. They are:

1. Preparation: Identify your problem/needs/issues.

2. Tell the person "We need to talk."
3. Interpersonal confrontation: Talk to the other person about your problem.
4. Consider your partner's point of view: Listen, empathize, and respond with understanding.
5. Resolve the problem: Make a mutually satisfying agreement.
6. Follow up on the solution: Set a time limit for reevaluation.

Although we would like to avoid giving the impression that all conflicts, large and
small, are resolved by following six easy steps, it helps to know what to do and what not to
do when confronting someone with whom you disagree. Also, keep in mind that when you
find yourself stopped at one step, we advise backtracking one or more steps to allow for a
more thorough discussion before attempting moving forward. That being said, let's begin
with the first step, preparation for confrontation.

Preparation: Identify Your Problem/Needs/Issues

The first step is preparation, where you identify your problem, needs, and the issues.
"Preparation is the most extensive and, in many ways, the most important stage of the con­
frontation process." 18 This process is the stop and think portion of the S-TLC model that
we will describe more fully in Chapter 4. At this stage, self-talk is important. Self-talk, as
you can guess, is verbalizing, either out loud or to ourselves, that is, inner messages.
People can talk themselves out of confronting others; they can talk themselves into it; or
they can talk themselves into handling confrontation in negative, destructive ways. In
Chapter 1, we noted that many people prefer to avoid conflicts, but this is not a good idea
when a continuation of problems and unmet needs may do damage to a relationship,
assuming that the other does not turn abusive if confronted. Asking yourself "who, what,
where, when, how" enables you to examine many more aspects of a situation to determine
what the problem is, how it affects you and the relationship, and how you feel about it. You
need to determine what you want (your goal). Ask yourself what is likely to happen if you
don't receive what you want or what could happen to the relationship if you do. Once you
have determined that you need to confront the other person, you need to try to think posi­
tively and encourage yourself to go through with it.
A way to prepare is through what is termed an imagined interaction, which is a
form of intrapersonal communication in which you think about what you might say and
another might say in response to you in a particular conversation. 19 Imagined interactions
serve as a planning function. People who imagine interactions with others do not actually
think about the interaction as they expect it to occur. Rather, they think about the interac­
tion in an "if-then" kind of way: If he says "x," I will tell him "y"; if she says "a," I will say
"b." In this sense, imagined interactions are much like cartoon strips. They are both visual
and verbal, they happen sequentially, and the imaginer can rewrite the script if desired.
36 PA RT I Managing the Conflict Process

Imaginers also have powers similar to comic strip creatures: They can control a conversa­
tion to their satisfaction, they can read the minds of characters, and they can travel through
time or back up action if they want to replay it. 20
There is a downside to imagined interactions. When people are asked about
thoughts they have concerning conflict situations, only 1 percent report thinking about the
other person's view in the conflict situation. 21 People do try to make sense of conflict sit­
uations, however, by answering two questions: Who or what is responsible for the con­
flict? and How serious is the conflict? Unfortunately, simply focusing our thoughts on a
conflict often makes it worse. People who dwell on a particular conflict tend to place the
blame on the other person involved and overestimate the seriousness of it. 22 We find it
useful not to simply ponder the conflict but to think about what the other person might say
about it, what you would like to say, and how to do so in a "competent way." It is impor­
tant not to mimic the findings of one study where results indicated that people imagine in­
teractions with significant levels of verbal aggression and physical violence. 23 Imagining
yourself acting competently in the conflict situation is most likely to result in competent
behavior. After preparing for the confrontation, now is the time to arrange for it.

Tell the Person "We Need to Talk"

At the second step you tell the person, "We need to talk." Most people understand that the
statement "we need to talk" is an invitation to confrontation, creating the initiation stage of
the conflict process. Telling the person "we need to talk" may sound strange to you. To us,
this step is like making an appointment or a reservation. We are simply saying that you
both need to agree on a time to sit down and talk about what is bothering you.
You do this by asking the other person if you can meet and talk about something.
Personally, we think you need to provide a little bit about the subject so that the other per­
son has some idea about the topic of discussion, otherwise she or he may worry about
something that has nothing to do with the meeting. You need to pick a time and place that is
appropriate, but usually not over 24 hours from the time when you ask the other person to
meet and talk. Working spouses, for example, usually don't want to engage in a serious
discussion when they first arrive home from a hard day's work. Supervisors generally like to
have some warning that a problem is afoot and usually have less busy times when they can
meet with employees about problem areas. The point is this: Try to anticipate the other per­
son's schedule so that the time to talk doesn't become one more crisis in a day full of them.
Pick a place that is relatively private and free of distractions. It's usually not a good idea
to try to talk with the person with children, roommates, or others around or with the television
set on. They are potentially distracting. An example of a way to ask for a meeting is: "I want
us to talk about what happened last night. I know that now is not a good time, so can we dis­
cuss it tomo1rnw after your modem world class? We could go for a ride and talk." Once you
have made the arrangement to meet, consider the next stage, the actual confrontation itself.

Interpersonal Confrontation: Talk to the Other

about Your Problem
Stage three is the actual interpersonal confrontation, where you talk to the other about your
problem, needs, or issues. This is the stage where assertiveness plays an important role
 CH APTER 2 A Process View of Conflict 37

because you call attention to a problem or issue and give voice to your wants, interests, or
needs. When you want to assert yourself, follow these suggestions.
• Stand tall, or if sitting, lean slightly forward, but don't crowd the other person
• Keep at least a couple of feet between you both
• Look at the person, but don't stare (suggestion: focus on her or his forehead)
• Look serious, but don't frown, glare, or appear menacing
• Speak firmly, calmly, slowly, and don't allow yourself to become verbally aggressive
• Use open gestures and avoid any threatening gestures such as arm waving, pointing,
standing up, or making a fist
• State your own point of view in terms of your needs, wants, interests, and concerns but
find something on which you both agree.
While we are generally in favor of assertive responses to conflict situations, we need
to point out that confronting others is not always advisable. You need to choose to assert
yourself when the situation calls for it, however. Sometimes others cannot handle your
assertiveness, and they may be someone who has a lot of influence over you or your future,
such as your boss, teacher, parent, or romantic partner. Insecure people may become
aggressive or passive-aggressive. One of the authors, Lee, likes to tell his students that the
romantic, dating period is a good time to determine whether a future mate can handle one's
assertiveness. When a problem occurs in your relationship, you can test your partner's
ability to deal with conflict situations by confronting him or her. If that person turns abusive,
walks out on you, becomes rigid and uncooperative, and you find yourself having to avoid
or accommodate on all important concerns, you need to realize that such a person is likely
to continue to mismanage conflict situations. On the other hand, if the person is not turned
off by your asse1tiveness, takes you into consideration, and cooperates with you, then you
may have discovered someone who is an effective conflict manager. The moral to the story
is to try to smrnund yourself with people who are open with you and who can handle your
asse1tiveness.

Consider Your Partner's Point of View

At stage four, you need to consider your partner's point of view. Researchers claim that
empathy is an essential aspect of communication competence. "Empathic processes, or the
tendency to consider another's beliefs and feelings, allow people to better judge appropri­
ateness ..." 24 Put yourself in the other's position and ask yourself how you would feel if
requested to make the same change. Would you resent it? Would you think that such a
request is reasonable? If you do not think it is, chances are the other doesn't either.
Assertiveness sounds self-oriented, but according to our view it is both self- and
other-oriented. Self-orientation is standing up for your rights, interests, and concerns as
discussed in Chapter 1. Other orientation means that you are attentive to, adaptive toward,
and interested in others participating in a conversation. We shift to an other orientation
when we start asking questions such as this: "What do you think?" "What do you want?"
"How do you feel?" Other orientation is also seen in expressions of empathy and concern
about the other's thoughts, wants, and feelings. It is manifested in behaviors such as listen­
ing well, providing relevant feedback to the other, and supporting and accepting what the
other is saying as a true representation of who the other person is.
38 PA RT I Managing the Conflict Process

According to researchers, some individuals suffer from informational reception

apprehension, which "triggers deficiencies in an individual's ability to receive, process
and interpret, and/or adjust to information." 25 This concept is particularly relevant because
people often fear what others may say in a conflict situation. They may blame us, bring up
undesirable information, or remind us of past incidents. However, it is important that you
open yourself to the other's point of view. Hopefully, you can see that the need to "hear the
person out" outweighs the unpleasantness of what the other may say.
There are four skills for responding.

• You can rephrase.

• You can ask the other person what he or she means.
• You can provide a possible reason for a statement and see how the other responds.
• You can use an unfinished question and let the other person fill in the rest.

In responding, you need to try to keep your temper under control: Act; don't react. You do
not have to accept what the other person says if it is incorrect.
When we listen to another's feelings, sensitivity is important. Perhaps one of the
most disconfirming actions we can take is to tell others that they have no right to feel the
way they do. Rather, focus on why others feel the way they do and what role those feelings
play in the conflict instead of arguing about the legitimacy of the feeling. If a listener
responds to a statement like "I get angry when I think you are taking advantage of me" by
disparaging the feeling ("You can't really be angry over this"), the speaker will be less
likely to continue the conflict episode to a mutually satisfactory ending. More likely, the
person raising the issue will shut down and say something like, "Never mind. It doesn't
matter," leaving both people feeling that the issue is unresolved.
Another disconfirming action is the response many people make when listening to
others: "I know exactly how you feel." This is one message that does not belong in conflict
language. You make such a statement to someone close to you when you're sharing an
excited exchange or discovering mutual interests. But in conflict, such a statement belittles
others because it negates the uniqueness of the listener's experience, and, in essence, rep­
resents a play for power. Rothwell refers to this as a "shift" response, as opposed to a "sup­
port" response. 26 The emphasis is on "I" (my wants, needs, desires, importance), not on
"you" (your wants, needs, desires, importance). If you tell me how angry you are with me
because I was on the phone when you expected an important call and I respond saying, "I
know just how you feel. Last week I didn't get an important call, either," whose feelings
become the focus of attention? Mine do. How is it different if I respond, "I didn't realize
that you were expecting a call" or "You're really angry, aren't you"? This response makes
your feelings the focus of my attention and, in doing so, acknowledges my responsibility in
the conflict and my willingness to make amends. After determining how the other feels
about the issue or problem, you can do the next step, resolve it.

Manage the Problem: Come to a Mutual Understanding

and Reach an Agreement
An important step in managing conflict is coming to a mutual understanding and reach­
ing an agreement. We sometimes find it helpful to put the agreement in writing for future
 C H A PT E R 2 A Process View of Conflict 39

reference ("You say I agreed to what?"). We need to request specific actions. The reason
we request the action is shown in the expression of needs. Through the expression of
specific wants and having reached an agreement, conflicting parties can give the
outcome a try and attempt the last step, that is, review and reevaluation. Many interper­
sonal conflicts are resolved with rather simple agreements ("OK, I agree to do the dishes
on days you work."). For more complicated ones, we make a number of suggestions for
written agreements in Chapter 11, when we look at formal agreements that result from
mediation.

Follow Up on the Solution: Set a Time Limit for Reevaluation

The entire confrontation process does not stop with an understanding, agreement, or reso­
lution; it ends only after successful performance over time, which is determined (and more
likely guaranteed) by a review at a later date, because a true resolution or agreement is one
that works or is actually carried out. We suggest that you set a date with the other to return
to the issue at hand and evaluate the progress made-reward yourself if successful or
revise your agreement if not. After a few weeks, discuss to what extent the necessary
changes have actually occurred.
In our discussion of the above six steps to confrontation, we purposely strove for brevity
to give you more of an overview of the confrontation process. In the next chapter, we'll provide
more detailed information on creating competent messages in conflict situations.

MANAGE IT

In this chapter, we describe the process of conflict and different ways conflict unfolds as
people begin to experience issues with someone close to them. The key to effective conflict
management is an understanding of both what gives rise to conflict (what we have termed
the prelude to conflict and triggering event) and what occurs at the subsequent stages-the
initiation phase, differentiation phase, and the resolution phase.
The prelude to conflict sets the stage by identifying the people, place, and time of the
conflict. At the next stage, a triggering event functions as a stimulus, often leading to the ini­
tiation of conflict, followed by the initiation phase, which is the response to a triggering
event. The subsequent differentiation phase is the ongoing interaction pattern in which most
of the conflict communication occurs. Finally, in the resolution phase conflict participants
come to a mutually satisfactory agreement or outcome.
Often people will get caught up in destructive cycles that do not allow their conflict
to progress to some satisfactory outcome. The conflict avoidance cycle and the chilling
effect are characteristic of a relationship between people whose first impulse is to avoid
initiating conflict or to quickly withdraw when conflicts arise. They serve as examples of
how unsuccessful conflicts become mired down in one of the first four stages, namely at
stage two. In this case, the conflict has a prelude stage (e.g., one or more of the participants
has a past history of poorly managing conflicts), followed by a stage two triggering event
(e.g., one partner forgets an important date), but instead of progressing to stage three initi­
ation, the offended individual does not initiate the conflict because she or he prefers not to
engage in conflict. The chilling effect occurs in situations where one fears the outcome.
40 PA RT I Managing the Conflict Process

The competitive conflict escalation cycle has a prelude stage (e.g., one or more of the
participants has a past history of poorly managing conflicts) followed by stage two triggering
event (e.g., one partner forgets an impmtant date) and moves through stage three initiation, but
gets locked into stage four differentiation, instead of progressing to the final stage resolution.
The way we view our relationship with the other person, our past successes and fail­
ures in enacting conflict with the other, how we identify an issue, how we assign blame,
and how we voice our complaint all affect our pattern of interaction in conflict situations.
Potentially productive conflict behavior exists somewhere in the maze of options. In each
stage of productive conflict we can choose to spin off into the avoidance, chilling effect,
and competitive cycles. As with the destructive cycles, productive conflict behavior stems
from attitudes and beliefs about conflict.
When we see conflict as a normal part of relationships and when we listen to others
and assert ourselves, we are less likely to become mired down in a destructive conflict cycle.
We have devised the following six confrontation steps to effectively manage interpersonal
conflicts.

1. Preparation: Identify your problem/needs/issues.

2. Tell the person "We need to talk."
3. Interpersonal confrontation: Talk to the other person about your problem.
4. Consider your paitner's point of view: Listen, empathize, and respond with understanding.
5. Resolve the problem: Make a mutually satisfying agreement.
6. Follow up on the solution: Set a time limit for reevaluation.

Although six confrontation steps may seem like a long list to remember, each and every
step is an essential phase of the confrontation process. People often forget the last one, but
we need to ensure that the process is complete and working as we intended.
We would like to say that confrontation always produces mutually satisfying results,
but this is not true. Although confrontation works more often than not and sometimes with
surprising results, there are times when the other person is uncooperative, the issue is too
complex, and we don't have enough time or energy to do it right. As teachers, we authors
encounter many pessimistic students who are reluctant to try the six steps; however, many
report excellent results and a change of heart after applying them while confronting some­
one about a significant issue.

Think About It
1. In what ways do you take a nonprocess view of communication, relationships, or
conflict? How can you change your thinking?
2. How have your conflicts typically played themselves out? Do you sense that there are
patterns in your conflicts?
3. Think about several scripts that you perform regularly. What are the advantages and
disadvantages of doing so?
4. Think of a time when you felt that you handled a conflict well. What did you do that
seemed competent to you? How do those behaviors contrast with a time when you
felt you handled a conflict poorly?
 CH APTER 2 A Process View of Conflict 41

Apply It
1. Write out a description of a recent conflict that you experienced or observed. What
would have happened if there were more or less individuals involved as parties to the
conflict? How would the addition or subtraction of interested third parties or
bystanders affect the conflict outcome? What effect would changing the time or
place have had on the conflict?
2. Take a sheet of paper and draw three columns on it. Describe three recent conflict­
triggering events that happened to you that involved people you know well. For
example, a person at work is always borrowing your materials without permission.
Compare the way you responded to each of these triggers. Did you respond the same
way in each case? If so, why? If not, why?
3. Compare two conflicts in which avoiding worked in different ways-one conflict you
avoided eventually resolved itself, and another you avoided that ended up getting
worse because you put off confronting it.
4. Compare two conflicts-one that escalated and another that did not. What was the
difference between the two? What were the outcomes?

Work With It
1. Using the process approach, identify each of the phases of the conflict cycle in the
following narrative (prelude, triggering event, initiation, differentiation, and
resolution).
There are four secretaries where I work. Two of us have the same title because we are
designated as the company "president's secretaries" and part of our job is to manage the
workflow for the entire team of four. My coworker and I have to come to many
agreements about phone schedules, work schedules, meetings dates, and lunch sched­
ules. We both try to come up with ideas of our own to put to use for the team, and at
times we have had arguments. We can sometimes come to an agreement and use one or
the other's ideas.
Recently, he and I met to talk about our new lunch schedule because we went
from six secretaries down to four after layoffs. We both came up with our ideas on
how to work lunch schedules and phone coverage. He liked his idea and I liked mine,
but this time we really didn't want to use the other person's ideas. After a few rounds
of rethinking what to do, we finally made a new schedule together and bits and
pieces ended up looking like both models. We needed to work together in order to
see that there were things that the other was missing and unfairness in certain areas
of phone coverage. We had to do the schedule five times to get it right. It sounds a
lot easier but it's not. Everyone gets a day off phones but still has to cover phones
during lunch time, even if it's her or his day off because we don't have enough people.
Two people go to lunch at 12 pm and two go at 1 pm and when you aren't at
lunch you cover phones. We had to swap times through the week to make sure at least
two days a week two people are going to lunch at 12 and that everyone has a chance
to go to lunch with a different person at least one day a week. Wow, what a project it
turned out to be but we finally got a working schedule in place, after we did it
together.
(Continued)
42 PART I Managing the Conflict Process

2. Using the process approach, read the following case study and determine what
stages are illustrated.
I was having dinner with my parents. When the topic of politics arose, I made a negative
comment about the current U.S. president, in response to which my father called me an
idiot. I felt my dad wasn't even listening to my point of view but rather looking for ways
to criticize me. I told him that he wasn't listening. This in turn angered him and he told me
that I'm someone impossible to carry on a conversation with. I told him that he was
regressing to the way he treated me when I was a child. He then said, "When is your atti­
tude going to change? Are you going to ever grow up?" I told him I was trying but felt
that he was too demanding in his expectations of my maturity. As usual, my mother was
eating without saying anything.

a. What type of nonproductive conflict cycle is illustrated by this case study?

b. What do you think happens later in this situation?
c. By applying the ideas learned in this chapter, analyze the conflict to see what has
gone wrong and what other choices could have led to better outcomes.

NOTES
I. Kenneth W. Thomas, "Conflict and Conflict Power, Marital Schema, and Decisions to Withhold
Management," in M. D. Dunnett (Ed.), The Complaints: An Investigation of the Chilling Effect
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational on Confrontation in Marriage," Communication
Psychology (Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1976), Swdies 55 (2004), 146-171.
p. 893. 7. Michael E. Roloff and Danette Ifert Johnson,
2. In Greek mythology, Procrustes was an innkeeper "Reintroducing Taboo Topics: Antecedents and
with only one bed. If his guest was too short for Consequences of Putting Topics Back on the
the bed, he stretched the guest to fit; if the guest Table," Communication Studies 52 (2001), 37-50.
was too long, he cut off the guest's legs to fit. 8. Ibid., pp. 57-58.
3. Vernon E. Cronen, W. Barnett Pearce, and Lonna M. 9. Ann Buysse, Armand DeClercq, Lesley Verhhofstadt,
Snavely, "A Theory of Rule-Structure and Types Else Heene, Herbert Roeyers, and Paulette Van Oost,
of Episodes and a Study of Perceived Enmeshment "Dealing with Relational Conflict: A Picture in
in Undesired Repetitive Pattern ('URPs')," in Milliseconds," Journal of Social and Personal
Dan Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, Vol. 3 Relationships 17 (2000), 574-597.
(New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1979), 10. Michael E. Roloff and Denise H. Cloven, "The
pp. 225-240. Chilling Effect in Interpersonal Relationships:
4. Gregory Bateson, Naven, 2nd Ed. (Stanford, CA: The Reluctance to Speak One's Mind," in Dudley D.
Stanford University Press, 1958). Cahn (Ed.), fllmates in Conflict: A Communication
5. Rudolph J. Rummel, Understanding Ccmflict and Perspective (Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
War: The Conflict Helix, Vol. 2 (Beverly Hills, Associates, 1990), pp. 49-76.
CA: Sage Publications, 1976); "A Catastrophe 11. Lore! Scott and Robert Martin, "Value Similarity,
Theory Model of the Conflict Helix, with Tests," Relationship Length, and Conflict Interaction in
Behavioral Science 32 (1987), 238. Dating Relationships: An Initial Investigation,"
6. Michael E. Roloff and Danette E. Ifert, "Conflict paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Management through Avoidance: Withholding Speech Communication Association, Chicago, IL,
Complaints, Suppressing Arguments, and Declaring November 1986.
Topics Taboo," in Sandra Petronio (Ed.), Balancing 12. Ibid.
the Secrets of Private Disclosures (Mahwah, NJ: 13. Theodore A. Avtgis, "Adult-Child Control
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Publishers, 2000), Expectancies: Effects on Taking Conflict Personally
pp. 151-163; Denise Haunani Solomon, Leanne K. toward Parents," Communication Research Reports
Knobloch, and Mary Anne Fitzpatrick, "Relational 19 (2002), 226-236.
 C H A PT E R 2 A Process View of Conflict 43

14. Several authors have noted that once a conflict is ini­ 20. Renee Edwards, James M. Honeycutt, and
tiated, the greatest pressures are toward escalation Kenneth S. Zagacki, "Imagined Interaction as an
rather than toward containment and management. Element of Social Cognition," Western Journal of
See, for example, Morton Deutsch, "Conflicts: Speech Communication 52 (1988), 23-45.
Productive or Destructive?" Journal ofSocial Issues 21. Denise H. Cloven, "Relational Effects of
25 (1969), 7-41; Louis Kriegsberg, The Sociology Interpersonal Conflict: The Role of Cognition,
of Social Conflicts (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Satisfaction, and Anticipated Communication,"
Hall, 1973); Dean G. Pruitt and Jeffrey z. Rubin, Master's thesis, Northwestern University, Evanston,
Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settle­ IL, 1990.
ment (New York: Random House, 1986); Robert D. 22. Denise H. Cloven and Michael E. Roloff, "Sense­
Nye, Conflict among Humans (New York: Spring Making Activities and Interpersonal Conflict:
Publishing, 1973). Communication Cures for the Mulling Blues,"
15. Dominic A. Infante and Charles J. Wigley, "Verbal Western Journal of Speech Commu11ication 55
Aggressiveness: An Interpersonal Model and (1991), 134-158.
Measure," Communication Mo11ographs 53 ( 1986), 23. Terre H. Allen and Kristen M. Berkos,
61-69. "Ruminating about Symbolic Conflict through
16. See for example, Dudley D. Calm (Ed.), Family Imagined Interactions," Imagination, Cognition,
Violence: Communication Processes (Albany, NY: and Perso11ality 25 (2005-2006), 307-320.
SUNY, 2009); and Dudley D. Cahn and Sally Lloyd 24. Amy S. Ebesu Hubbard, "Conflict between
(Eds.), Family Vio/e11ce from a Commw1icatio11 Relationally Uncertain Romantic Partners: The
Perspective (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1996). Influence of Relational Responsiveness and
17. Pruitt and Rubin, Social Co11flict, pp. 7-8. Empathy," Communication Monographs 68
18. Rory Remer and Paul de Mesquita, 'Teaching and (2001 ), 402.
Learning the Skills of Interpersonal Confrontation," 25. Paul Schrodt and Lawrence R. Wheeless, "Aggres­
in Dudley D. Cahn (Ed.), Intimates i11 Conflict: sive Communication and Informational Reception
A Commu11ication Perspective (Hillsdale, NJ: Apprehension: The Influence of Listening Anxiety
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990), p. 229. and Intellectual Inflexibility on Trait Argumentative­
19. James M. Honeycutt, Kenneth S. Zagacki, and ness and Verbal Aggressiveness," Co111111u11ication
Renee Edwards, "Imagined Interaction and Quarterly 49 (2001 ), 57.
Interpersonal Communication," Communicatio11 26. J. Dan Rothwell, In Mixed Company, 6th Ed.
Reports 3 (1990), 1-8. (Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2007).