Conflict is a normal and natural part of life. Conflict is inevitable. However, learning how to manage conflict in our interpersonal relationships is very important for long-term success in those relationships. This chapter is going to look at how conflict functions and provide several strategies for managing interpersonal conflict.

Understanding Conflict

For our purposes, it is necessary to distinguish between a conflict and a disagreement.^[1] A disagreement is a difference of opinion. It often occurs during an argument, or a verbal exchange between two or more people who have differing opinions on a given subject or subjects. It’s essential to recognize that arguments are not necessarily conflicts, but they can quickly escalate into conflicts if they become verbally aggressive. One factor that ultimately can help determine if an argument will escalate into a conflict is an individual’s tolerance for disagreement. James McCroskey, along with his colleagues, initially defined tolerance for disagreement as the ability of an individual to openly discuss differing opinions without feeling personally attacked or confronted.^{[2] [3]} People who have a high tolerance for disagreement can easily discuss opinions with pretty much anyone and realize that arguing is perfectly normal and, for some, even entertaining. People with a low tolerance for disagreement often feel personally attacked whenever someone is perceived as devaluing their opinion. From an interpersonal perspective, understanding someone’s tolerance for disagreement can help in deciding whether arguments will be perceived as attacks that could lead to verbally aggressive conflicts. However, not all conflict is necessarily verbally aggressive nor destructive.

The term “conflict” is actually quite difficult to define. We could have an entire chapter where we just examined various definitions of the term. Simplistically, conflict is an interactive process occurring when conscious beings (individuals or groups) have opposing or incompatible actions, beliefs, goals, ideas, motives, needs, objectives, obligations, resources, and/or values. First, conflict is an interactive and inherently communicative phenomenon. Second, two or more people or even groups of people who can think must be involved. Lastly, there is a wide range of areas where people can hold opposing or incompatible opinions. For this generic definition, we provided a laundry list of different types of incompatibility that can exist between two or more individuals or groups. Is this list completely exhaustive? No. However, we provided this list as a way to consider the more common types of issues that arise when people engage in conflict. From this perspective, everything, from a minor disagreement to a knock-down, drag-out fight, would be classified as a conflict.

The remainder of this section will explore the nature of conflict and its significance in communication. To do this, we’ll discuss two different perspectives on conflict (disruption vs. normalcy). Then we’ll explore interpersonal conflict more closely. Lastly, we’ll discuss the positive and negative functions of conflict.

Two Perspectives on Conflict

As with most areas of interpersonal communication, no single perspective in the field related to interpersonal conflict. There are two very different perspectives that one can take. Herbert W. Simmons was one of the first to recognize that there were two distinct perspectives on conflict.^[4] On the one hand, you had scholars who see conflict as a disruption in a normal working system, which should be avoided. On the other hand, some scholars view conflict as a normal part of human relationships. Let’s look at each of these in this section.

Disruptions in the Normal Workings of a System

The first major perspective of conflict was proposed by James C. McCroskey and Lawrence R. Wheeless.^[5] McCroskey and Wheeless described conflict as a negative phenomenon in interpersonal relationships:

Conflict between people can be viewed as the opposite or antithesis of affinity. In this sense, interpersonal conflict is the breaking down of attraction and the development of repulsion, the dissolution of perceived homophily (similarity) and the increased perception of incompatible differences, the loss of perceptions of credibility and the development of disrespect.^[6]

From this perspective, conflict is inherently destructive. McCroskey and Virginia P. Richmond went further, arguing that conflict is characterized by antagonism, distrust, hostility, and suspicion.^[7]

This more negative view of conflict distinguishes itself from the separate term’ disagreement,’ which is simply a difference of opinion between two or more people or groups of people. Richmond and McCroskey note that there are two types of disagreements: substantive and procedural.^[8] A substantive disagreement is a disagreement that people have about a specific topic or issue. Basically, if you and your best friend want to go eat at two different restaurants for dinner, then you’re engaging in a substantive disagreement. On the other hand, procedural disagreements are “concerned with procedure, how a decision should be reached or how a policy should be implemented.”^[9] So, if your disagreement about restaurant choice switches to a disagreement on how to make a choice (flipping a coin vs. rock-paper-scissors), then you’ve switched into a procedural disagreement.

A conflict, then, is a disagreement plus negative affect, or when you disagree with someone else and you don’t like the other person. It’s the combination of a disagreement and dislike that causes a mere disagreement to turn into a conflict. Ultimately, conflict is a product of how one communicates one’s dislike of another person during the disagreement. In some relationships, people end up saying very nasty things to one another during disagreements because their affinity for the other person has diminished. When conflict is allowed to continue and escalate, it “can be likened to an ugly, putrid, decaying, pus-filled sore.”^[10]

From this perspective, conflicts are ultimately only manageable; whereas, disagreements can be solved. Although a disagreement is the cornerstone of all conflicts, most disagreements don’t turn into conflicts because there is an affinity between the two people engaged in the disagreement.

Normal Part of Human Communication

The second perspective on the concept of conflict differs significantly from the first. As described by Dudley D. Cahn and Ruth Anna Abigail, conflict is a normal, inevitable part of life.^[11] Cahn and Abigail argue that conflict is one of the foundational building blocks of interpersonal relationships. One can even ask if it’s possible to grow in a relationship without conflict. Managing and overcoming conflict makes a relationship stronger and healthier. Ideally, when interpersonal couples engage in conflict management (or conflict resolution), they will reach a solution that is mutually beneficial for both parties. In this manner, conflict can help people seek better, healthier outcomes within their interactions.

Ultimately, conflict is neither good nor bad, but it’s a tool that can be used for constructive or destructive purposes. Conflict can be very beneficial and healthy for a relationship. Let’s look at how conflict is beneficial for individuals and relationships:

• Conflict helps people find common ground.
• Conflict helps people learn how to manage conflict more effectively for the future.
• Conflict provides the opportunity to learn about the other person(s).
• Conflict can lead to creative solutions to problems.
• Confronting conflict allows people to engage in an open and honest discussion, which can build relationship trust.
• Conflict encourages people to grow both as humans and in their communication skills.
• Conflict can help people become more assertive and less aggressive.
• Conflict can strengthen individuals’ ability to manage their emotions.
• Conflict lets individuals set limits in relationships.
• Conflict lets us practice our communication skills.

When one approaches conflict from this vantage point, it can be seen as a valuable resource in interpersonal relationships. However, both parties must employ prosocial conflict management strategies for this approach to work effectively (more on that later in this chapter).

Now that we’ve examined the basic idea of conflict, let’s shift our focus to a more interpersonal perspective.

Interpersonal Conflict

According to Cahn and Abigail, interpersonal conflict requires four factors to be present:

1. the conflict parties are interdependent,
2. they have the perception that they seek incompatible goals or outcomes or they favor incompatible means to the same ends,
3. the perceived incompatibility has the potential to adversely affect the relationship leaving emotional residues if not addressed, and
4. there is a sense of urgency about the need to resolve the difference.^[12]

Let’s examine each of these aspects of interpersonal conflict individually.

People are Interdependent

According to Cahn and Abigail, “interdependence occurs when those involved in a relationship characterize it as continuous and important, making it worth the effort to maintain.”^[13] From this perspective, interpersonal conflict occurs when we are in some relationship with another person. For example, it could be a relationship with a parent/guardian, a child, a coworker, a boss, a spouse, etc. In each of these interpersonal relationships, we generally see ourselves as having long-term relationships with these people that we want to succeed. Notice, though, that if you’re arguing with a random person on a subway, that will not fall into this definition because of the interdependence factor. We may have disagreements and arguments with all kinds of strangers, but those don’t rise to the level of interpersonal conflicts.

People Perceive Differing Goals/Outcomes of Means to the Same Ends

An incompatible goal occurs when two people want different things. For example, imagine you and your best friend are thinking about going to the movies. They want to see a big-budget superhero film, and you’re more in the mood for an independent artsy film. In this case, you have pretty incompatible goals (movie choices). You can also achieve the same end through incompatible means. Incompatible means, in this case, “occur when we want to achieve the same goal but differ in how we should do so.”^[14] For example, you and your best friend agree on going to the same movie, but not about at which theatre you should see the film.

Conflict Can Negatively Affect the Relationship if Not Addressed

Next, interpersonal conflicts can lead to very negative outcomes if the conflicts are not managed effectively. Here are some examples of conflicts that are not managed effectively:

• One partner dominates the conflict, and the other partner caves-in.
• One partner yells or belittles the other partner.
• One partner uses half-truths or lies to get her/his/their way during the conflict.
• Both partners only want to get their way at all costs.
• One partner refuses to engage in conflict.
• One partner becomes physically violent with the other person, because they don’t know how to control their anger.
• Etc.

Again, this is a sample laundry list of some ways where conflict can be mismanaged. When conflict is mismanaged, one or both partners may develop a less favorable view of the other, leading to a decrease in liking, reduced caring for the relational partner, increased desire to exit the relationship, increased relational apathy, and increased revenge-seeking behavior. All of these negative outcomes could ultimately lead to conflicts becoming increasingly aggressive (both active and passive) or to outright conflict avoidance. We’ll look at both of these later in the chapter.

Some Sense of Urgency to Resolve Conflict

Last, there must be a sense of urgency to resolve the conflict within the relationship. The conflict reaches a point where it must receive attention, and a decision must be made or an outcome decided upon, or else it will become more problematic and negative if left unaddressed.

Now, some people let conflicts simmer and escalate over many years, which can eventually boil over. However, these types of conflicts, when they arise, often have an underlying issue that is causing the sudden explosion. For example, imagine your spouse has a particularly quirky habit. For the most part, you ignore this habit and may even make a joke about the habit. Finally, one day you just explode and demand the habit must change. Now, you may let this conflict build for so long that it finally explodes. It’s kind of like a geyser. According to Yellowstone National Park, here’s how a geyser works:

The looping chambers trap steam from the hot water. Escaped bubbles from trapped steam heat the water column to the boiling point. When the pressure from the trapped steam builds enough, it blasts, releasing the pressure. As the entire water column boils out of the ground, more than half the volume is this steam. The eruption stops when the water cools below the boiling point.^[15]

In the same way, sometimes people let irritations or underlying conflict percolate inside of them until they reach a boiling point, which leads to the eventual release of pressure as a sudden, out-of-nowhere conflict. Here, even though the conflict has been building for some time, the eventual desire to make this conflict known to the other person does cause an immediate sense of urgency to resolve the conflict.

Emotions and Feelings

To begin our examination of the concept of emotions and feelings, and how they relate to harmony and discord in a relationship, it’s essential to distinguish between emotions and feelings. Emotions are our reactions to stimuli in the outside environment. Emotions, therefore, can be objectively measured by blood flow, brain activity, and nonverbal reactions to things. Feelings, on the other hand, are the responses to thoughts and interpretations given to emotions based on experiences, memory, expectations, and personality. So, there is an inherent relationship between emotions and feelings, but we do differentiate between them. Table 9.1 breaks down the differences between the two concepts.

It’s important to understand that we are all allowed to be emotional beings. Being emotional is an inherent part of being a human. For this reason, it’s important to avoid phrases like “don’t feel that way” or “they have no right to feel that way.” Again, our emotions are our emotions, and, when we negate someone else’s emotions, we negate that person as an individual and take away their right to emotional responses. Though, no one else can make you “feel” a specific way. Our emotions are our emotions. They are how we interpret and cope with life. A person may set up a context in which you experience an emotion, but you are the one who is still experiencing that emotion and allowing yourself to experience it. If you don’t like “feeling” a specific way, then change it. We all can alter our emotions. Altering our emotional states (in a proactive way) is how we get through life. Maybe you just broke up with someone, and listening to music helps you work through the grief you are experiencing to get to a better place. For others, it is essential to openly communicate about how they are feeling in order to process and work through their emotions. The worst thing a person can do is attempt to deny that the emotion exists.

Think of this as a balloon. With each breath of air you blow into the balloon, you are bottling up more and more emotions. Eventually, that balloon will reach a point where it can no longer hold any more air before it bursts. Humans can be the same way with emotions when we bottle them up inside. The final breath of air in our emotional balloon doesn’t have to be big or intense. However, it can still cause tremendous emotional outpourings that is often very damaging to the person and their interpersonal relationships with others.

Other research has demonstrated that handling negative emotions during conflicts within a marriage (especially on the part of the wife) can lead to faster de-escalations of conflicts and faster conflict mediation between spouses.^[18]

Emotional Awareness

Sadly, many people are completely unaware of their own emotions. Emotional awareness, or an individual’s ability to clearly express, in words, what they are feeling and why, is an extremely important factor in effective interpersonal communication. Unfortunately, our emotional vocabulary is often quite limited. One extreme version of of not having an emotional vocabularly is called alexithymia, “a general deficit in emotional vocabulary—the ability to identify emotional feelings, differentiate emotional states from physical sensations, communicate feelings to others, and process emotion in a meaningful way.”^[19] Furthermore, many people can accurately differentiate emotional states but lack the actual vocabulary for a wide range of different emotions. For some people, their emotional vocabulary may consist of good, bad, angry, and fine. Learning how to express one’s emotions is crucial for maintaining effective interpersonal relationships.^[20] First, it’s important to distinguish between our emotional states and how we interpret an emotional state. For example, you can feel sad or depressed, but you really cannot feel alienated. Your sadness and depression may lead you to perceive yourself as alienated, but alienation is a perception of oneself self and not an actual emotional state. There are several evaluative terms that people ascribe to themselves (usually in the process of blaming others for their feelings) that they label emotions, but which are in actuality evaluations and not emotions. Table 9.2 presents a list of common evaluative words that people confuse for emotional states.

Instead, people need to avoid using evaluative words and learn how to communicate effectively by expressing a wide range of emotions. Tables 9.3 and 9.4 provide a list of both positive and negative feelings that people can express. Go through the list considering the power of each emotion. Do you associate light, medium, or strong emotions with the words provided on these lists? Why? There is no right or wrong way to answer this question. Still, it is essential to recognize that individuals may vary in their interpretations of the emotional intensity of different words. If you don’t know what a word means, you should look it up and add another word to your list of feelings that you can express to others.

The Problem of You Statements

According to Marshall Rosenberg, the father of nonviolent communication, “You” statements ultimately are moralistic judgments where we imply the wrongness or badness of another person and the way they have behaved.^[21] When we make moralistic judgments about others, we deny responsibility for our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Remember, with feelings, no one can “make” you feel a specific way. We choose the feelings we inhabit; we do not inhabit the feelings that choose us. When we make moralistic judgments and deny responsibility, we end up in a constant cycle of defensiveness, where our relational partner does not meet our individual needs. Behind every negative emotion is a need that is not being fulfilled, and when we start blaming others, those needs will continue to go unfulfilled in the process. Often, this lack of need fulfillment results in our demanding that someone fulfill our need or face blame or punishment. For example, “If you go hang out with your friends tonight, I’m going to hurt myself and it will your fault.” In this simple sentence, we see someone who disapproves of another’s behaviors and threatens to blame their relational partner for the individual’s behavior. In highly volatile relationships, this constant blame cycle can become extremely detrimental, as no one’s needs are being met.

However, simply observing behavior and stating how you feel only gets you part of the way there, because you’re still not articulating your need. Now, when we talk about the idea of “needing” something, we are not talking about this strictly in terms of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, though those are all entirely appropriate needs. Relational needs are not rewards like tangible items or money. Instead, Marshall Rosenberg categorizes basic needs that we all have falling into the categories: autonomy, celebration, play, spiritual communion, physical nurturance, integrity, and interdependence (Table 9.5). As you can imagine, any time these needs are not being met, you will reach out to get them fulfilled. As such, when we communicate about our feelings, they are tied to an unmet or fulfilled need. For example, you could say, “I feel dejected when you yell at me because I need to be respected.” In this sentence, you are identifying your need, observing the behavior, and labeling the need. Notice that there isn’t judgment associated with identifying one’s needs.

Emotional Intelligence

In Chapter 3, we first discussed the concept of emotional intelligence. However, it’s essential to revisit this concept before proceeding. In Chapter 3, we defined emotional intelligence(EQ) as an individual’s appraisal and expression of their emotions and the emotions of others in a manner that enhances thought, living, and communicative interactions. Furthermore, we learned that EQ is built by four distinct emotional processes: perceiving, understanding, managing, and using emotions.^[22] Although we are talking about the importance of EQ, take a minute and complete The Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire, which is a simple 20-item questionnaire designed to help you evaluate your own EQ.

Letting Go of Negative Thoughts

We often refer to these negative thoughts as vulture statements (as discussed in Chapter 3).^[26] Some of us have huge, gigantic vultures sitting on our shoulders every day, and we keep feeding them with all of our negative thoughts. Right when that thought enters your head, you have started to feed that vulture sitting on your shoulders.

Unfortunately, many of us will focus on that negative thought and hold it in our minds for a long period. It’s like have a bag full of carrion, and we keep lifting it to the vulture, who just keeps getting fatter and fatter, weighing you down more and more.

Every time we point out a negative thought instead of harping on that thought, we take a pause and stop feeding the vulture. Do this long enough, and you will see the benefits to your self-concept. Furthermore, when we have a healthy self-concept, we also have stronger interpersonal relationships.^[27]

Positive Emotions During Conflict

Researchers have found that serious relationship problems arise when those in the relationship cannot move beyond the immediate conflict and incorporate both positive and negative emotions into their discussions. In a landmark study of newlywed couples, for example, researchers attempted to predict who would have a happy marriage versus an unhappy marriage or a divorce, based on how the newlyweds communicated with each other. Specifically, they created a stressful conflict situation for couples. The researchers then evaluated how often the newlyweds expressed positive emotions and how often they expressed negative emotions when discussing the situation with each other.

When the marital status and happiness of each couple were evaluated over the next six years, the study found that the strongest predictor of a marriage that stayed together and was happy was the degree of positive emotions expressed during the conflict situation in the initial interview.^[28]

In happy marriages, instead of always responding to anger with anger, couples find a way to lighten the tension and de-escalate the conflict. In long-lasting marriages, during stressful times or in the midst of conflict, couples were able to inject some positive comments and show positive regard for each other. When this finding is generalized to other types of interpersonal relationships, it makes a strong case for incorporating some positive interactions, humor, light-hearted fun, or playfulness into conversations while trying to resolve conflicts.

Power and Influence

One of the primary reasons we engage in a variety of interpersonal relationships over our lifetimes is to influence others. We live in a world where we constantly need to accomplish a variety of goals, so being able to get others to join us in our goals is a crucial part of social survival. As such, we define influence when an individual or group of people alters another person’s thinking, feelings, and/or behaviors through accidental, expressive, or rhetorical communication.^[29] Notice this definition of influence is one that focuses on the importance of communication within the interaction. Within this definition, we discuss three specific types of communication: accidental, expressive, or rhetorical.

First, we have accidental communication, or when we send messages to another person without realizing that those messages are being sent. Imagine you are walking through your campus’s food court and notice a table set up for a specific charity. A person we really respect is sitting at the table, laughing and smiling, so you decide to donate a dollar to the charity. The person who was hanging out at the table influenced your decision to donate. They could have just been talking to another friend and may not have even been a genuine supporter of the charity, but their presence was enough to influence your decision to donate. At the same time, we often influence others to think, feel, and behave in ways they wouldn’t have unconsciously. A smile, a frown, a head nod, or eye eversion can all be nonverbal indicators to other people, which could influence them. There’s a great commercial on television that demonstrates this. The commercial begins with someone holding the door for another person. This person turns around and does something kind for another person, and this “paying it forward” gesture continues throughout the entire commercial. In each incident, no one said to the person they were helping, “pay it forward”; they just did.

The second type of communication we can have is expressive or emotionally-based communication. Our emotional states can often influence those around us. If we are happy, others can become happy, and if we are sad, others may avoid us altogether. Maybe you’ve walked into a room and seen someone crying, so you ask, “Are you OK?” Instead of responding, the person turns and glowers at you, so you turn around and leave. With just one look, this person influenced your behavior.

The final type of communication, rhetorical communication, involves purposefully creating and sending messages to another person hoping to alter another person’s thinking, feelings, and/or behaviors. Accidental communication is not planned. Expressive communication is often not conscious at all. However, rhetorical communication is purposeful. When we are using rhetorical communication to influence another person(s), we know that we are trying to influence that person(s).

Levels of Influence

In 1958, social psychologist Herbert Kelman first noted that there are three basic levels of influence: compliance, identification, and internalization.^[30] Kelman’s basic theory was that changes in a person’s thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors occur at different levels, which results in different processes an individual uses to achieve conformity with an influencer. Let’s look at each of these three levels separately.

Compliance

The first, and weakest, form of influence is compliance. Compliance implies that an individual accepts influence and alters their thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors. However, this change in thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors is transitory and only lasts as long as the individual sees compliance as beneficial.^[31] People accept influence at this level because they perceive the rewards or punishments for influence to be in their best interest. As such, this form of influence is very superficial.^[32]

Identification

The second form of influence discussed by Kelman is identification, which is based purely in the realm of relationships. Identification occurs when an individual accepts influence because they want to have a satisfying relationship with the influencer or influencing group. “The individual actually believes in the responses which he [or she] adopts through identification, but their specific content is more or less irrelevant. He [or she] adopts the induced behavior because it is associated with the desired relationship. Thus, the satisfaction derived from identification because of the act of conforming as such.”^[33] Notice that Kelman is arguing that the actual change to thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors is less of an issue than the relationship and the act of conforming. However, if an individual ever decides that the relationship and identification with the influencing individual or group are not beneficial, then the influencing attempts will naturally dissipate, and the individual will revert to their original thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

Internalization

The final level of influence proposed by Kelman is internalization, which occurs when an individual adopts influence and alters their thinking, feeling, and/or behaviors because doing so is intrinsically rewarding. Ultimately, changing one’s thinking, feelings, and/or behavior occurs at the internalization level because an individual sees this change as either aligning with their value system, considers the helpful change, or fulfills a need they have. Influence that occurs at this level becomes highly intertwined with the individual’s perception of themselves, making this type of influence long-lasting.

French & Raven’s Five Bases of Power

When you hear the word “power,” what comes to mind? Perhaps you think of a powerful person, such as a Superhero or the President of the United States. For social scientists, we use the word “power” in a very specific way. Power is the degree that a social agent (A) has the ability to get another person(s) (P) to alter their thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors. First, you have a social agent (A), which can take various forms: another person, a role someone embodies, a group rule or norm, or a group or part of a group.^[34] Next, we have the person(s) who is being influenced by the goal to be a specific change in thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors. When we discussed influence above, we talked about it in terms of communication: accidental, expressive, and rhetorical. When we deal with power, we are only dealing in the realm of rhetorical communication because the person exerting power over another person is consciously goal-directed.

Probably the most important people in the realm of power have been John French and Bertram Raven. In 1959, French and Raven identified five unique bases of power that people can use to influence others (coercive, reward, legitimate, expert, and referent).^[35] At the time of their original publication, there was a sixth base of power that Raven attempted to argue for, informational. Although he lost the battle in the initial publication, subsequent research by Raven on the subject of the bases of power have all included informational power.^[36] Let’s examine each of these five bases of power.

Informational

The first basis of power is the last one originally proposed by Raven.^[37] Informational power refers to a social agent’s ability to bring about a change in thought, feeling, and/or behavior through information. For example, since you initially started school, teachers have had informational power over you. They have provided you with a range of information on history, science, grammar, art, etc. that shape how you think (what constitutes history?), feel (what does it mean to be aesthetically pleasing?), and behave (how do you properly mix chemicals in a lab?). In some ways, informational power is very strong, because it’s often the first form of power with which we come into contact. In fact, when you are taught how to think, feel, and/or behave, this change “now continues without the target necessarily referring to, or even remembering, the [influencer] as being the agent of change.”^[38]

Coercive and Reward

The second base of power is coercive power, which is the ability to punish an individual who does not comply with one’s influencing attempts. On the other end of the spectrum, we have reward power (3^rd base of power), which is the ability to offer an individual rewards for complying with one’s influencing attempts. We talk about these two bases of power together because they are two sides of the same coin. Furthermore, the same problems with this type of power apply equally to both. Influence can happen if you punish or reward someone; however, as soon as you take away that punishment or reward, the thoughts, feelings, and/or behavior will reverse back to its initial state. Hence, we refer to both coercive and reward power as attempts to influence someone to comply, as this is the highest level of influence one can hope to achieve with these two forms of power.

Legitimate

The fourth base of power is legitimate power, or influence that occurs because a person (P) believes that the social agent (A) has a valid right to influence P, and P has an obligation to accept A’s attempt to influence P’s thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors. French and Raven argued that there were two common forms of legitimate power: cultural and structural. Cultural legitimate power occurs when a change agent is perceived as having the authority to influence others due to their role within the culture. For example, in some cultures, the elderly may have a stronger right to influence than younger members of that culture. Structural legitimate power, on the other hand, occurs because someone fulfills a specific position within the social hierarchy. For example, your boss may have the legitimate right to influence your thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors in the workplace because they are above you in the organizational hierarchy.^[39]

Expert

The fifth base of power is expert power, or the power we give an individual to influence us because of their perceived knowledge. For example, we often give our physicians the ability to influence our behavior (e.g., eating right, exercising, taking medication) because we view these individuals as having specialized knowledge. However, this type of influence is only effective if P believes A is an expert, P trusts A, and P believes that A is telling the truth.

One problem we often face in the 21^st Century involves the conceptualization of the word “expert.” Many people in today’s world can be perceived as “experts” simply because they have written a book, host a talk show, appeared on a reality TV show, or are featured on news programs.^[40] Many of these so-called “experts” may have no reasonable skill or knowledge but they can be trumpeted as experts. One of the problems with the Internet is the fundamental flaw that anyone can put information online with only an opinion and no facts. Additionally, we often engage in debates about “facts” because we have different sources providing us with conflicting information. Historically, expert power was always a very strong form of power, but there is growing concern that we are losing expertise and knowledge to unsubstantiated opinions and rumor-mongering.

At the same time, there is considerable research demonstrating that many people are either unskilled or uninformed and completely unaware of their lack of expertise. This phenomenon has been referred to as the Dunning–Kruger effect, which describes the tendency of some individuals to overestimate their expertise when, in fact, they have no basis for that perception.^[41] As you can imagine, having a lot of people who think they are experts spouting off untrue information can be highly problematic in society. For example, do you really want to take medical advice from a TV star? Many people do. While we have some people who inflate their expertise, on the other end of the spectrum, some people suffer from impostor syndrome, which occurs when people devalue or simply do not recognize their knowledge and skills. Impostor syndrome is generally a problem experienced by highly educated individuals, such as doctors, lawyers, professors, and business executives. The fear is that someone will discover they are a fraud.

Referent

The final base of power originally discussed by French and Raven is referent power, or a social agent’s ability to influence another person because P wants to be associated with A. Ultimately, referent power is about building relationships and the desire for a connection. If A is a person P finds attractive, then P will do whatever they need to do to become associated with A. If A belongs to a group, then P will want to join that group. Ultimately, this relationship exists because P wants to think, feel, and behave as A does. For example, if A decides that he likes modern art, then P will also choose to like contemporary art. If A has a very strong work ethic in the workplace, then P will likely adopt a strong work ethic as well. Often A has no idea of the influence they are having over P. Ultimately, the stronger P desires to be associated with A, the more referent power A has over P.

Influence and Power

By now, you may be wondering about the relationship between influence and power. Research has examined the relationship between the three levels of influence and the six bases of power. Coercive, reward, and legitimate power only influence people at the compliance level. Whereas, informational, expert, and referent power have been shown to influence people at all three levels of influence: compliance, identification, and internalization.^[42] When you think about your own interpersonal influencing goals, you really need to consider what level of influence you desire a person’s change in thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors to be. If your goal is simply to effect change quickly, then using coercive, reward, and legitimate power may be the best approach. If, however, you want to ensure long-term influence, then using informational, expert, and referent power are probably the best routes to use.

Conflict Management Strategies

Many researchers have attempted to understand how humans handle conflict with one another. The first researchers to create a taxonomy for understanding conflict management strategies were Richard E. Walton and Robert B. McKersie.^[44] Walton and McKersie were primarily interested in how individuals handle conflict during labor negotiations. The Walton and McKersie model consisted of only two methods for managing conflict: integrative and distributive. Integrative conflict is a win-win approach to conflict; whereby, both parties attempt to come to a settled agreement that is mutually beneficial. Distributive conflict is a win-lose approach; whereby, conflicting parties see their job as to win and make sure the other person or group loses. Most professional schools teach that integrative negotiation tactics are generally the best ones.

ABCs of Conflict Management

Over the years, a number of different patterns for handling conflict have arisen in the literature, but most of them agree with the first two proposed by Walton and McKersie, but they add a third dimension of conflict: avoidance. Go ahead and take a moment to complete the ABC’s of Conflict Management questionnaire.

Avoiders

Alan Sillars and his colleagues developed a taxonomy of various strategies that individuals can employ to avoid conflict. Table 9.6 provides a list of these common tactics.^[45]

Battlers

For our purposes, we have opted to describe those who engage in distributive conflict as battlers because they often view entering a conflict as akin to going to war, which is most appropriately aligned with distributive conflict management strategies. Battlers believe that conflict should take on an approach where the battler must win the conflict at all costs without regard to the damage they might cause along the way. Furthermore, battlers tend to be very personalistic in their goals and are often highly antagonistic toward those individuals with whom they are engaging in conflict.^[46]

Sillars et al. developed a taxonomy of various types of strategies that individuals can employ when utilizing distributive conflict management approaches. Table 9.7 provides a list of these common tactics.^[47]

Collaborators

The last type of conflicting partners are collaborators. There are a range of collaborative choices, from being completely collaborative to find a mutually agreed-upon solution, to being compromising when you realize that both sides will need to win and lose a little to come to a satisfactory solution. In both cases, the goal is to use prosocial communicative behaviors in an attempt to reach a solution everyone is happy with. Admittedly, this is often easier said than done. Furthermore, one side may claim to want to collaborate, while the other side refuses to collaborate at all. When this happens, collaborative conflict management strategies may not be as effective, because it’s hard to collaborate with someone who truly believes you need to lose the conflict.

Sillars et al. developed a taxonomy of various strategies that individuals can employ when collaborating during a conflict. Table 9.8 provides a list of these common tactics.^[48]

Before we conclude this section, we would like to point out that others often reciprocate with conflict management strategies. If you initiate a conflict in a highly competitive manner, do not be surprised when your conflicting partner responds in kind and adopts distributive conflict management strategies in return. The same is also true for integrative conflict management strategies. When you start using integrative conflict management strategies, you can often de-escalate a problematic conflict by employing these strategies.^[49]

STLC Conflict Model

Ruth Anna Abigail and Dudley Cahn developed a straightforward model for understanding how we communicate during conflict.^[50] They called the model the STLC Conflict Model because it stands for stop, think, listen, then communicate.

Stop

The first thing an individual needs to do when interacting with another person during conflict is to take the time to be present within the conflict itself. Too often, people engaged in a conflict say whatever enters their mind before they’ve really had a chance to process the message and think of the best strategies to use to send that message. Others end up talking past one another during a conflict because they simply are not paying attention to each other and the competing needs within the conflict. Communication problems often occur during conflict because people tend to react to conflict situations as they arise, rather than being mindful and present during the conflict itself. For this reason, it’s always important to take a breath during a conflict and first stop.

Sometimes these “time outs” need to be physical. Perhaps you need to leave the room and take a brief walk to calm down, or maybe you just need to get a glass of water. Whatever you need to do, it’s essential to take this break. This break takes you out of a “reactive stance into a proactive one.”^[51]

Think

Once you’ve stopped, you can now really think about what you are communicating. You want to think through the conflict itself. What is the conflict really about? Often people engage in conflicts about superficial items when there are truly much deeper issues that are being avoided. You also want to consider what possible causes led to the conflict and what possible courses of action you think are possible to conclude the conflict. Cahn and Abigail argue that four possible outcomes can occur: doing nothing, changing oneself, changing the other person, or changing the situation.

First, you can sit back and avoid the conflict. Maybe you’re engaged in a conflict about politics with a family member, and this conflict is actually just going to make everyone mad. For this reason, you opt to stop the conflict and change topics to avoid upsetting people. One of our coauthors was at a funeral when an uncle asked our coauthor about our coauthor’s impression of the current President. Our coauthor’s immediate response was, “Do you really want me to answer that question?” Our coauthor knew that everyone else in the room would completely disagree, so our coauthor knew this was probably a can of worms that didn’t need to be opened.

Second, we can change ourselves. Often, we are at fault and start conflicts. We may not even realize how our behavior caused the conflict until we take a step back and really analyze what is happening. When it comes to being at fault, it’s very important to admit that you’ve done wrong. Nothing is worse (and can stoke a conflict more) than when someone refuses to see their part in the conflict.

Third, we can attempt to change the other person. Let’s face it, changing someone else is easier said than done. Just ask your parents/guardians! All of our parents/guardians have attempted to change our behavior at one point or another, and changing people is very hard. Even with the powers of punishment and reward, many changes only last as long as the punishment or the reward. One of our coauthors was in a constant battle with our coauthors’ parents about thumb sucking as a child. Our coauthor’s parents tried everything to get the thumb sucking to stop. They finally devised an ingenious plan. They agreed to buy a toy electric saw if their child didn’t engage in thumb sucking for the entire month. Well, for a whole month, no thumb sucking occurred at all. The child got the toy saw, and immediately inserted the thumb back into our coauthor’s mouth. This short story is an excellent illustration of the problems that can arise from rewards. Punishment works the same way. As long as people are being punished, they will behave in a specific way. If that punishment is ever taken away, so will the behavior.

Lastly, we can just change the situation. Having a conflict with your roommates? Move out. Having a conflict with your boss? Find a new job. Having a conflict with a professor? Drop the course. Admittedly, changing the situation is not necessarily the first choice people should make when considering possibilities, but often it’s the best decision for long-term happiness. In essence, some conflicts will not be settled between people. When these conflicts arise, you can try and change yourself, hope the other person will change (they probably won’t, though), or get out of it altogether.

Listen

The third step in the STLC model is listen. Humans are not always the best listeners. As we discussed in Chapter 7, listening is a skill. Unfortunately, during a conflict situation, this is a skill that is desperately needed and often forgotten. When we feel defensive during a conflict, our listening becomes spotty at best, as we start to focus on ourselves and protecting ourselves instead of trying to be empathetic and seeing the conflict through the other person’s eyes.

One mistake some people make is to think they’re listening, but in reality, they’re listening for flaws in the other person’s argument. We often use this type of selective listening as a way to devalue the other person’s stance. In essence, we will identify one small flaw in what the other person is saying and then use that flaw to demonstrate that, by implication, everything else must be wrong as well.

The goal of listening is to suspend your judgment and genuinely attempt to be present enough to interpret the message being sent by the other person accurately. When we listen in this highly empathic way, we are often able to see things from the other person’s point of view, which can help us achieve a better-negotiated outcome in the long run.

Communicate

Lastly, but certainly not least, we communicate with the other person. Notice that Cahn and Abigail place communication as the last part of the STLC model because it’s the most challenging aspect to execute effectively during a conflict if the first three are not addressed correctly. When we communicate during a conflict, we must be hyper-aware of our nonverbal behavior (eye movement, gestures, posture, etc.). Nothing will kill a message faster than when it’s accompanied by bad nonverbal behavior. For example, rolling one’s eyes while another person is speaking is not an effective way to engage in conflict. One of our coauthors used to work with two women who clearly despised each other. They would never openly say something negative about the other person publicly, but in meetings, one would roll her eyes and make these non-word sounds of disagreement. The other one would smile, slow her speech, and look in the other woman’s direction. Everyone around the conference table knew exactly what was transpiring, yet no words needed to be uttered at all.

During a conflict, it’s essential to be assertive and stand up for your ideas without becoming verbally aggressive. Conversely, you have to be open to someone else’s use of assertiveness as well without having to tolerate verbal aggression. We often end up using mediators to help call people on the carpet when they communicate in a fashion that is verbally aggressive or does not further the conflict itself. As Cahn and Abigail note, “People who are assertive with one another have the greatest chance of achieving mutual satisfaction and growth in their relationship.”^[52]

Chapter Wrap-Up

At the beginning of this chapter, conflict in interpersonal relationships is inevitable. The only way relationships can truly grow is through conflict; therefore, learning how to manage conflict effectively is essential for maintaining successful interpersonal relationships.

Chapter Exercises

Real-World Case Study

Paul has been in a yearlong relationship with his boyfriend Bill. Paul really loves the idea of being in love, but he’s not in love with Bill at all. Unfortunately, on Valentine’s Day, he made the mistake of telling Bill that he loved him, even though he doesn’t. As far as Paul is concerned, he could end the relationship today.

Bill fell madly in love with Paul almost immediately after they started hanging out and going to the gym together. One day, when Bill and Paul were hanging out watching TV, he looked at Paul and told him he loved him. Bill immediately noticed that Paul looked like a deer in headlights and let him off easy, saying, “There’s no need to say it back if you’re not ready to do so.”

Ultimately, the relationship evolved into something more akin to a genuine friendship than a romantic one. The two hung out and went to dinner, and saw movies, but they were never really intimate with one another. Paul kept up the charade because he kind of liked some of the perks of being in a relationship. He liked having someone to hang out with all the time. He enjoyed having someone clean his house and cook for him. He liked having someone who would look after his cats when he went on vacation.

Over time, Bill began to realize that something was amiss in the relationship. One day, when he and Paul were talking about the future, he told Paul, “I want to be everything for you.” He immediately saw that, once again, Paul looked like a deer trapped in headlights. Over time, Bill began to notice that Paul was growing increasingly distant. He really loved Paul, but he began to realize that it wasn’t being reciprocated in the same way. Instead of saying something, he just shook the thoughts out of his mind and kept going.

1. Would you classify this as a healthy relationship?
2. Why do you think Paul has such a hard time being honest with Bill?
3. Why do you think Bill was so determined to make the relationship work when it was clearly not being reciprocated?
4. How would you describe the emotional quality of this relationship?
5. How do you think this couple would engage in conflict?

End-of-Chapter Assessment

1. Jonathan loves to debate a wide range of ideas. In fact, he has no problems arguing for or against something just to engage in a healthy debate with another person. Which personality trait does Jonathan exhibit?
   1. need for cognition
   2. argumentativeness proneness
   3. conflict avoidance
   4. high tolerance for disagreement
2. Which of the following represents a nonviolent communicative message?
   1. silence
   2. placating
   3. playing games
   4. aggressive behavior
   5. violence
3. Which of the following is not an effective statement when communicating about one’s feelings?
   1. “If you flirt with one more person, I’m going to hurt myself, and it will be your fault.”
   2. “I hate it when you flirt with other people.”
   3. “I feel lonely when you flirt with other people because I need emotional safety.”
   4. “You make me feel like a piece of trash when you flirt with other people.”
4. Viivi is a Norwegian language instructor. As she teaches about Norwegian, she also peppers in a variety of culture factors into her teachings. One of her students, Jim, really wants to spend a summer abroad in Norway, so Jim listens attentively to everything Viivi has to offer. Because of Viivi’s knowledge of Norway, Jim hangs on every word. What type of power best represents Viivi’s?
   1. coercive
   2. reward
   3. legitimate
   4. expert
   5. referent
5. Hodoya is a Canadian union leader. She’s currently involved in negotiations with a large uranium production company. Hodoya sees her job as the lead negotiator to get the best possible deal for her union members. As such, she goes into negotiations with a win-lose orientation. What type of conflict management strategies will Hodoya employ?
   1. avoidance
   2. distributive
   3. competitive
   4. collaborative
   5. integrative