psychology, help) conflict resolution - essential skills for couples and their counselors

8/14/2019 Psychology, Help) Conflict Resolution - Essential Skills for Couples and Their Counselors

1/25

COUPLE CONFLICT RESOLUTION 1

Conflict Resolution: Essential Skills for Couples and Their Counselors

Susan Heitler, Ph.D.

Denver, Colorado

Abstract

Expertise in conflict resolution is very helpful for professionals who work with couples in

distress. Without effective conflict resolution skills when spouses face differences they

are likely to experience tension, anger and arguing, depression, anxiety disorders,

distancing, and obsessive-compulsive syndromes such as excessive drinking, eating

disorders. Each of these disorders stems from a specific ineffective conflict resolution

pattern. Effective conflict resolution habits, by contrast, lead to outcomes that feel

positive to the participants. Healthy conflict resolution pathways begin with expression of

participants' initial positions, continue with detailed exploration of their underlying

concerns, and conclude with creation of a plan of action or solution set responsive to all

of the specified concerns. Success in traversing this pathway requires that information be

shared in accordance with principles of open and cooperative information flow.


2/25


Conflict Resolution: Essential Skills for Working With Couples

This article reviews the process of resolving conflict, emphasizing skills and

concepts that are particularly useful for mental and spiritual health professionals who

work with distressed couples. Much of this information comes from the authors work

over the past twelve years applying concepts developed in the fields of business

negotiation and legal mediation to the theory and techniques of marital counseling.

Expertise in conflict resolution is a useful and perhaps even essential skill set for

couple counselors because a key role of the counselor is to guide couples from the

distress of conflict, to the cooperation that brings about resolution and the well-being and

restoration of affection that follows resolution. Couples who seek counseling frequently

ask explicitly for help resolving the conflicts that have created tensions in their marriage.

Conflict resolution expertise helps a counselor to respond skillfully to these requests.

Counselors also need conflict resolution expertise in order to teach troubled couples the

skills that sustain cooperative partnership (Markman and Hahlweg, 1993). By teaching

these skills, a counselor increases a couples ability to address differences effectively on

their own subsequent to treatment.

Why do couples need collaborative communication and cooperative conflict

resolution skills? Spouses who do not know the basic guidelines for sustaining healthy

dialogue are likely to crash and injure each other like car drivers who do not know the

basic rules of the road such as driving on the right and stopping at red lights. In addition,

differences inevitably arise in marriage because marriage requires shared decision-

making. As spouses conduct the business of living together, decisions become

unpleasant if one partner pulls insistently in one direction and the other another, if one


3/25


demands and the other caves in, or one spouse experiences the other as deprecating or

defensive. With poor conflict resolution patterns, even small decisions such as who to

invite for dinner or how often to clean the kitchen floor can corrode spousal affection and

bring on stress, tension, irritation, resentment, and depression. Handled with mutually

considerate conflict resolution strategies, however, the same decision-making moments

can lead to outcomes that both spouses endorse and appreciate.

When couples who are experiencing difficulties seek a counselor to guide them

safely away from tensions into a resumption of harmony, the several ways that therapists

can help define three goals of couple counseling:

(1) Easing of symptoms, that is, relief from the anxiety, depression, anger, etc that are

perpetuated by poorly handled conflicts.

(2) Resolution of issues that have generated adversarial interactions, and

(3) Development of skills for sustaining goodwill and cooperation.

Interestingly, while conflict resolution seems to constitute a vital component of

couple counseling, the counseling literature thus far has offered surprisingly little

guidance in this domain. For instance, my fairly comprehensive couple therapy

bookshelf includes over 30 books dating from the 1970s to the present. Almost none of

these texts even include the word conflict in their indexes, much less contain the term,

or information about, conflict resolution. Multiple psychological researchers, such as

Gottman (Gottman et al, 1972) and Notarius and Markman(1993) have contributed

excellent research on marital communication skills. Their writings however do not

include the advances in conflict resolution theory that enable fights to transform into

cooperative problem-solving and conclude with yield mutually satisfactory, win-win


4/25


solutions. Worse, Gottman blandly states that conflict resolution is an unrealistic goal;

conflicts, in his view, can only be regulated, not resolved (Gottman, 1999).

By contrast, conflict resolution theory and techniques have mainly originated in

the realms of business negotiation, international relations, legal mediation (e.g., Deutsch,

1973; Fisher and Ury, 1981; Fisher and Ertel, 1995; Fuller, 1991; Hargrove, 1998; and

Raiffa, 1982)i. My personal interest has been in conveying information from these

conflict resolution literatures into the theory and practice of counseling and therapy

(Heitler, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001). This current

article distills and summarizes the skills which I have found particularly useful in the

project of facilitating conflict resolution with couples in distress.

Signs That Indicate A Need for Conflict Resolution Assistance

Negative emotions signal conflicts. The term conflictin common language is

used to mean fighting, but as it is used in this article refers to any situation in which

seemingly incompatible elements exert pulls in apparently opposing or divergent

directions (Heitler, 1990), with or without overt adversarial interaction. Tense silence,

feelings of anxiety or depression, and addictive impulses all suggest brewing differences,

that is, unresolved or poorly resolved conflicts. Anger and arguing signal overt conflict.

The conflicts signaled by negative emotions can occur in various realms.

Intrapsychic conflicts pit a person's own various preferences, fears, desires, values, and

other motivations against each other. For instance, Norma might feel torn between

wanting to finish the dishes and wanting to go outside for a walk in the evening twilight,

or Joel might feel tempted to leave a troubled marriage and yet fear living as a single

person. Interpersonal conflicts occur between two or more individuals. Norma may


5/25


want to finish the dishes and Joel may want her to join him on an evening walk.

Intergroup conflicts may involve neighborhoods, businesses, ethnic groups, nations, or

any two or more groups, small or large. Lastly, reality conflicts develop between a

person or group and facts of life. Norma and Joel may feel upset because of frustrating

financial constraints or because one of them has been struck with a debilitating illness.

While the same principles of conflict resolution apply in all of these realms, this article

will focus on resolving conflict in the interpersonal realm--specifically, between partners

in a marriage relationship.

Persistent or particularly strong negative emotions generally indicate a conflict

with deeply felt or high priority concerns, and/or a process of dealing with the conflict

that has been sub-optimal. The more important the issues in conflict, the more strongly

felt, and therefore the more difficult it may be for the participants to sustain cooperative

interacting. In general, a healthy collaborative conflict resolution process includes:

Mutual information sharing through respectful talking and listeningrather

than avoidance of talking about the problem, or attempts to prevail via

combative means such as insistence, domination, coercion, threats, or

violence.

A cooperative tone characterized by attitudes of mutual respect--devoid of

criticism, blame, accusation, hostility, or antagonism. Negative elements in

the problem situation are addressed without attacks on the person of the other.

As Fisher and Ury say (1981), the problem is the problem, not the person.

A win-win outcome responsive to all the concerns of all the participants--

rather than an outcome that yields a winner and a loser.


6/25


When differences emerge in a healthy marriage, spouses express their personal

concerns, listen respectfully to each other, and emerge with a mutually satisfying

solution. In less emotionally sanguine marriages, by contrast, conflicts propel spouses

instead down one or more of four ineffective routes, none of which result in positive

solutions to the problem. Each of these four detours away from healthy resolution

pathways results in a specific type of psychopathology (Heitler, 1990).

The fight pathway, motored by anger, is most obviously labeled as conflict.

This pathway involves winning disagreements by overpowering the other.

Escalated emotional intensityby talking louder, speaking more rapidly,

hurting the other with critical words, or in extreme cases with physical injury-

- enables participants to intimidate, dominate, and coerce each other into

victory (Heitler, 1994a, 1995a).

The submit pathway involves giving up on gaining the outcomes one wants

(Heitler, 1994b, 1995c). In an adversarial interaction giving up can avert the

potential costs of fighting. Depression, however, as the concept of learned

helplessness has clarified, tends to be the by-product of choosing a giving up

route. Giving up on what one wants in any specific conflict may appear

preferable to fighting if the potential cost of winning a fight is losing the

marriage relationship, or if the other spouse clearly has more power so that the

outcome of fighting does not look favorable.

The freeze pathway involves an immobilization response to conflict. Anxiety

hovers when neither side in a conflict moves forward with explicit discussion,


7/25


problem-solving, or action. On-going disagreement without resolution

produces a stalemated state of tension (Heitler, 1995b).

The flight pathway utilizes the distraction of drugs, alcohol, eating disorders,

or obsessive-compulsive habits as an escape route from conflict. By turning

away into distracting activities or thoughts, participants avoid the fighting but

the conflict remains unresolved (Heitler, 2000).

Thus continued unresolved conflicts indicate ineffective conflict resolution. Also,

the continued presence of (1)anger, (2) depression, (3) anxiety/tension/stress, or (4)

addictive/obsessive-compulsives behaviors indicates ineffective conflict resolution.

The Three Steps of Conflict Resolution

Effective collaborative conflict resolution flows through three main steps.

1. Express initial positions

2. Explore underlying concerns

3. Create a solution set responsive to all the concerns of both participants.

In order to traverse these three steps successfully, participants in a cooperative

conflict resolution process must communicate in a manner consistent with cooperation.

Adherence to the principles of collaborative communication insures the smooth

information flow upon which conflict resolution depends.

When participants deviate from smooth information flow principles, discussions

polarize and become increasingly adversarial in tone. Participants begin to experience

themselves in opposition to each other, and to feel irritated or angry. Continuation of a

dialogue with poor skills increasingly risks deterioration into argument and escalation

into fighting.


8/25


By contrast, when participants in a dialogue are able to sustain a positive

emotional tone and utilize cooperative communication patterns, their dialogue will look

like shared decision-making. Actually, shared decision-making on the one hand, and

conflict resolution on the other, both utilize the same three steps of 1) expressing initial

positions, 2) exploring underlying concerns, and then 3) creating mutually satisfactory

solutions. Shared decision making tends to be a term people use in situations

characterized by a cooperative tone with a low and positive or neutral emotional charge.

By contrast, the term conflict resolution tends to be used to refer to situations in which

differences have evoked oppositional stances, tension, or antagonism.

When negative emotions such as tension, frustration, or irritation have already

arisen in a conflict, the intensity and the negativity generally need to be reduced in order

for the parties to move forward cooperatively. The counselors first task therefore may be

to reframe the conflict scenario as a situation needing shared problem solving. This

reframe launches a reduction in tension levels, and can facilitate the couples

transformation from adversarial (The problem is you. If you would just) to

collaborative stances (Lets work together to solve this.).

To bring about a calmer tone, and a switch from domination to cooperation,

multiple additional techniques can work. The relaxed, good-humored, non-anxious,

presence of the therapist can often calm antagonistic presences. Reassurance that both

parties have valid and important perspectives to share, and that these concerns will be

heard, can soothe raw emotions. In addition, the therapist often needs to set explicit

guidelines for tonerespectful and thoughtful comments are allowed; angry venting will

be not be allowed unless the other spouse steps out for the angry partner to talk alone


9/25


with the counselor in order to calm. Strict insistence on adherence to the rules of the road

concerning I and You messages, effective listening, and zero toxicity (criticism, blame,

etc) keeps tempers calm. Lastly, it is vital that the counselor truly believe that

cooperative talk is more effective than hostile fighting for dealing with differences.

The following example illustrates with more detail the three steps and the various

sub-skills necessary for success in resolving conflicts. Joel and Norma find themselves

in conflicti.e., facing a dilemma--about when to leave the party they plan to attend that

evening.

Step One: Express Initial Positions

Joel: Id like to plan to leave the party fairly early. I hope thats okay

with you.

Norma: Not really. I love staying till the very end at these kinds of

gatherings. Usually were the last ones to leave.

Joel: Im sure not up for that tonight. Wed better figure out when well

leave so we have a plan thats going to be ok with both of us.

Joel begins step one by expressing his preference for the evenings plans. Norma

responds by listening respectfully, and giving evidence that she has taken in the

information he has proffered. She then verbalizes her own preferencewhich Joel in

turn responds to in a way that acknowledges what he hears.

Symmetry is vital. Both Joel and Norma need to verbalize their preferences; and

both need to give evidence of digesting the others preferences.

For this first step to proceed effectively, each participant needs to say his/her

initial position aloud. For instance, Joel not only thinks, Id like to leave early; he


10/25


voices his preference. Merely thinking about what he would like would not suffice.

Asking what Norma wants to do without also putting his perspective on the table also

would not suffice. "Say it" is a first principle of healthy dialogue (Heitler, 1997).

Conflicts smolder if they are not openly expressed. If Joel, instead of expressing

his desire to leave the party early, had suppressed the impulse to say what he wanted, the

dialogue would have derailed at the outset, never launching at all. Self-suppression, and

resultant too narrow information flow, invites subsequent resentment, depression, or

overt anger. That evening at the party when the time came that Joel felt anxious to leave

and his wife was eager to stay on, unpleasant feelings would have been likely.

Any violations of basic communication guidelines (see Heitler, 1997) can derail

the conflict resolution process. For instance, if Joel had initiated the discussion, but with

a complaint, I hate the way you stay so late at parties, rather than a request, he could

inadvertently have torpedoed any subsequent cooperative dialogue. Complaints focus on

the negative, on what is wrong, what one does not like generating resistance and

defensive responses. Requests, by contrast, focus on would likes, propelling dialogue

forward.

Similarly, if Joel had initiated the discussion by saying to Norma, I want to leave

early tonight; dont give me a hard time about that! his telling Norma what to do instead

of encouraging her to voice her preferences would have invited either angry defiance or

depressed giving up from Norma.

Positive listening skills are similarly vital. If instead of listening openly for what

makes sense about her husbands request, Norma had retorted with defensiveness,


11/25


criticism, or a toxic comment--I do not stay late. Youre the one whos usually last to

leave--tensions would have escalated.

Bilateral listening refers to the ability to hear both ones own and the other

persons concerns (Heitler, 1997). Preoccupation with satisfying ones own desires at the

expense of the partners, that is, egocentrism, can become a narcissistic pattern that

invites marital tensions. Similarly, too much focus on pleasing the spouse to the

detriment of heeding one's own concerns, that is, excessive altruism, indicates a potential

for co-dependence and invites marriage frustrations. Bilateral listening, by contrast,

heeding both ones own and ones spouses concerns, results in mutual benefit and

continuing marital satisfaction for both partners.

In the example above, Joel and Norma each spoke their initial preferences, and

gave evidence of having heard the other. Initial positions having thus been expressed, an

over-arching problem statement can form a bridge to the next step of the resolution

process. For instance, Joel and Norma frame their dilemma as a problem with deciding

what time they will leave their party.

How a problem is framed has significant implications for the subsequent

discussions tone. Tensions tend to rise if either partner feels that the problem is being

defined as something that is wrong with one of the peoplee.g. that Joel is asocial or

Norma too garrulous--rather than as a situational dilemma, that is, what time to leave the

party. Defining the problem with a neutral umbrella dilemma label such as what time to

leave further insures that the subsequent dialogue is likely to be constructive and safe.

Step Two: Explore Underlying Concerns


12/25


Joel: I want to leave the party early because I been feeling tired and I dont want to get

sick with our vacation coming up.

Norma: Yes, I dont want you getting sick either. At the same time, its Ginny and David

who are giving the party and they are people I really like. Making their party a priority

is important to our friendship.

Joel: I appreciate how good you are about keeping friendships nourished. I tend not to

think about those kinds of things. I just go to a party, have fun, and then come home.

Which, by the way, brings to mind my other concern. Im worried that the car has been

having problems. I wont be happy if its past midnight, the garages are closed, and the

car breaks down on the way home.

Norma: We definitely need to figure out something about that car. One other concern

for me--weve been kind of out of the loop socially, working too much. Im looking

forward to the party as a time I can re-connect with the people who used to be our

friends. Everyone will be there.

This second step of conflict resolution requires that participants identify the

parameters of the situation (the concerns) to which the position they initially suggested

was a solution. Joel and Norma both look inward, using insight, and verbalizing the

concerns they have discovered.

For success at this second step, participants need the cognitive flexibility to be

able to loosen their attachments to the positions they had initially expressed. If they stay

attached to their initial solution ideas, participants will argue for or against their position

rather than allow themselves to explore. Convincing and debating reflect slippage into

attempts to control or dominate; these modes of dialogue also are incompatible with


13/25


exploration. Convincing, debating, insistence, and persuasion begin with a conclusion

and present arguments to convert the other to believing in the rightness of their initial

conclusion. Exploration, by contrast, utilizes initial positions as starting points for shared

discovery of both parties underlying concerns.

Exploration implies openness to taking in new information. The opposite extreme

of openness to new information is cognitive rigidity. Fixed ideational systems such as

occur in paranoid functioning, for instance, do not allow new non-confirmatory data to

enter the information system. The angrier people become, the more closed their

cognitive functioning seems to become. Defensiveness similarly tends to block uptake of

new information. By contrast, the more that two people perceive each other as friendly

and safe, the more they are likely to remain open to each others input.

Exploration is most effective when the process focuses on the specific details of

each concern. For instance, what did Joel mean by early and what did Norma mean by

late? Why is he tired? What specifically does he fear may break down in the car?

What specifically might lead Normas party-host friends to feel insulted, and what would

matter to them as evidence of friendship? With which friends and relatives did Norma

especially want to connect? What would count as connecting? The more that the

specifics of underlying concerns have been clarified, the more likely it will be that the

couple will find solutions that are successfully responsive to their concerns.

Both participants concerns need to be conceptualized as factors added to one list,

the single list of our concerns. In a loving relationship, any concern expressed by one

participant immediately becomes a concern of the other. Each concern becomes a

parameter of their shared dilemma and is valued by both of them. Putting both parties


14/25


concerns on a single list also facilities the skill of bilateral listening, of heeding their own

and their partners concerns with equal significance. A therapist may need to remind

spouses, Lets be sure all of the concerns you each have are on one mutual list of shared

concerns.

Concerns, i.e., parameters of the problem to be solved, come in many forms--

preferences, desires, feelings, values, fears, intuitions, costs, reality factors, etc. Joel and

Normas concerns included fatigue, car problems, and friendship. Fortunately, unlike

plans of actioni.e., positions and solutions--concerns tend not to be mutually exclusive.

Whereas Joel and Norma cannot leave a party and stay at the party simultaneously, they

should be able to find a plan of action that is responsive to all of their multiple concerns.

Step Three: Create a Win-win Solution Set

Finding a solution responsive to all the concerns that have been enumerated takes

a creative act rather than simple designation of one or the other of the initial positions that

had been suggested at the outset of the conflict discussion. Often, either persons initial

idea, with modifications, can be adapted so that it becomes win-win. Sometimes a third

plan of action altogether is preferable.

One trap to watch for is that spouses do not look for solutions by suggesting to

each other what the other can do. Rather, each spouse needs to look at what he or she

personally can do toward finding win-win solutions toward their mutual dilemma.

Also, vocabulary is important. The term solution set(Heitler, 1990, 1997) rather

than the more simple word solution implies that effective conflict resolution generally

results in plans that include a number of different actions, not a single action. A fully


15/25


win-win plan of action is likely to need multiple elements in order to respond to all the

concerns that have been identified.

For instance, a solution set for Joel and Norma might include the following

aspects: Joel would take an hour to nap in the afternoon, so that he is less fatigued.

During Joels nap Norma could bring the car to a mechanic to check and remedy the

potential breakdown. With these two concerns accounted for, Joel and Norma could then

stay at the party as late as either would like. Alternatively, or perhaps in addition, Joel

and Norma might decide that they could tell their hosts on arrival how much they

appreciate their friendship, that they are leaving for a vacation the next day, and that they

will need to leave earlier than their usual and preferred party departure time. With this

information, their hosts would more comfortably understand their early departure. As to

Normas visits with her friends and relatives, Norma could keep an eye on the clock to

pace how much time she had with each. A triage ahead of time could further enable her

to plan with whom she would want to spend considerable time, and with whom a brief

cordial greeting would suffice.

Having arrived at step three, creating solutions, does not negate the possibility of

returning to step two, exploring underlying concerns. In fact, complex conflict

negotiations typically go back and forth multiple times between creating possible

solutions and discovering additional concerns. As they talk more, for instance, Norma

may realize that staying out too late could create a problem with their new puppy. And

Joel might add that he has to get up early the next morning to work on papers from his

office that need to be attended to before they depart on their vacation trip. Their solution

set can be adapted to respond to these additional variables as well.


16/25


When the solution plan of action feels complete, a concluding question-- Are

there any little pieces of this that still feel unfinished?and a summary can increase the

odds that the ensuing consensus will prove lasting. For instance, Joel and Norma may

have agreed that 11:00 p.m. will be the latest time by which they will leave the party. In

response to the question, Are there any little pieces of this that still feel unfinished?

Joel than may realize, What if it turns out that the party is just getting going then, and

both of us are really enjoying the evening? Once these additional details have been

worked into the plan, a summary by one or both of the spouses prevents subsequent

misunderstandings by verifying that they are leaving the discussion with a shared vision.

Note that this successful conflict resolution involved no compromise. Whereas

flexibility is vital, compromiseboth parties giving up some of what they want--leaves

everyone feeling compromised. Rather, Joel and Normas process was cooperative and

the outcome was genuinely win-win.

Positional versus Interest-based Bargaining

Positional bargaining is the term used in the mediation literature to describe the

adversarial negotiation pattern that occurs when participants lock into step one, arguing

over whose position will prevail, instead of proceeding together to step two, a joint

exploration of their underlying concerns. Positional bargaininginsistence on a plan of

action based on ones initial position-- typically devolves into a tug of war. One

participant wins and one loses depending upon who has more power or perhaps more

investment in the outcome. With positional bargaining, the best that participants can

hope for in terms of mutual gain is a compromise, that is, a solution in which both

participants give up some of what they want.


17/25


In the conflict resolution literature,positional bargaining is contrasted with

interest -based bargaining. Whereas positional bargaining, or fighting over whose plan

of action will prevail, yields zero-sum, winner-loser, power-based confrontations,

interest-bargaining proceeds along the three steps of win-win problem-solving described

above. Interest-based bargaining is defined as looking behind initial positions to the

interests that lie behind the positions. Cooperation thus is a function of being able to

make the switch from arguing over positions--over specific plans of action--to exploring

each sides interests and concerns. Once these concerns have been elucidated, mutual

solutions that are based on this deeper understanding of what each side wants can be

generated.

This shift of focus from positional to interest-based negotiating is essential to

solving problems in a cooperative manner, but the terminology ofinterests that lie behind

positions proves confusing in personal and family conflict situations. Asking Joel and

Norma what their interests are in their dilemma about party departure time makes little

sense. Instead ofinterests, if the second step in the conflict resolution process is

conceptualized as exploring concerns (Heitler, 1990), the terminology becomes a better

fit with psychological phenomena such as desires, fears, preferences, and values. Asking

Joel and Norma their concerns about when to leave the party is a meaningful question,

one that helps them identify the relevant dimensions of their dilemma.

Concerns is a term that evokes a broad range of factors, including deeper concerns

such as those that therapists label transference issues. For instance, Joels underlying

concerns in the party departure decision may center on whether he feels controlled by his

wife. An underlying concern in their discussion for Norma may be Am I entitled to


18/25


have what I want count? Deeperrefers to those concerns that are less accessible to

conscious awareness and/or concerns that originate earlier in a persons life (Norcross,

1986).

Thus the negotiation literatures metaphor ofinterests thatlie behindpositions

needs a second change in order to dovetail with how people think about psychological

phenomena and personal, as opposed to business or legal, situations. Psychological

conceptualizations generally utilize a vertical, not horizontal, metaphor. We talk about

the sub conscious, deeper issues, and buried memories. Changing the terminology

from interests that liebehindpositions to exploring the concerns that underlie initial

positions accommodates to the vertical metaphor of psychological conceptualizations

(Heitler, 1990).

In sum, differentiating between concerns on the one hand, andpositions or

solutions (plans of action) on the other, makes cooperative win-win settlement possible.

The initial positions suggested in step one are only some of many possible solutions to

any given set of concerns. A solution is win-win to the extent that it is responsive to both

participants full range of underlying concerns. Neither participants initial position may

turn out to be the eventual chosen solution, but as long as both participants feel that their

concerns have been heeded in the outcome, they will experience the process as win-win.

Conflict Resolution and Information Flow

Information flow provides the current upon which effective conflict resolution

rides. Smooth information flow occurs when information is openly shared, and openly

received. By contrast, information presented in a threatening manner, or resisted with


19/25


defensiveness, results in blocked, diverted, or turbulent information flow. Escalated

emotions and adversarial stances disrupt effective communication.

Conflict resolution is dependent upon smooth flow of shared information so, to be

effective, conflict facilitators need to monitor the details of how spouses are talking and

listening to each other. Because information ceases to flow smoothly the moment any

principle of collaborative dialogue is violated, a therapists work necessitates continual

coaching, prompting, and repairing violations of cooperative dialogue skills.

Skills can be taught (Heitler, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995a, 1997, 2000). They

can be introduced in counseling sessions one by one), and then practiced and

reinforced with skill drills. Alternatively, couples can be encouraged to take a

couple communication course prior to or during treatment (Heitler, 1999).

Skills can be prompted (Heitler, 1990, 1992, 1995a, 2000). For instance, if a

spouses frown indicates that criticism is about to flow, the therapist can prompt

more positive and insight-focused delivery by suggesting sentence stems such as

My concern is or I would like (rather than I dont want ...).

Similarly, to prompt effective listening, after one spouse has spoken the counselor

can turn to the other spouse with the question, What makes sense to you in what

your partner just said? or can suggest the sentence stem, I appreciate .

Skills can be reinstated by a quick after-the-violation repair from the therapist

(Heitler, 1990, 1992, 1995a, 2000). For instance, the therapist can explore the

concern that suddenly triggered a spouses upsurge of anger or a toxic you-

statement. A therapist can invite a second draft of the comment, e.g., How

might you express the same concern in a way that talks about yourself rather than


20/25


about your spouse? Or the therapist can translate for the offending spouse by

moving his/her chair in next to the spouse (it helps to use a chair with wheels) and

reiterating the spouses comments in more collaborative language. You spend

money like a leaky faucet, for instance, could be translated, I get worried that

we wont have enough cash to pay our bills when I see spending thats not in the

budget weve planned.

Underlying these coaching and monitoring techniques is an assumption of zero

tolerance for communication violations. Prevention is preferable; if unsuccessful,

immediate intervention toward re-establishment of smooth information flow is essential if

what happens in the counseling room is to differ from the ineffective dialogue that the

couple has been utilizing on their own. Prevention and rapid intervention keep conflict

resolution dialogue safe and constructive.

Marriage Education: The Preventive Strategy

In medicine, treatments that remedy the pain and damage of medical disorders are

certainly helpful, but preventive approaches can be far less expensive, prevent the

damage altogether, and can reach far broader numbers of people. Teaching people to use

seat belts, for instance, is far less expensive and more broadly effective than setting

broken limbs and treating head injuries after car accidents. Similarly, particularly in the

first years of a couples relationship, marriage education that teaches skills of

communication and conflict resolution can give couples lifelong skills for healthy

collaborative partnership.

Perhaps then, one of the most important roles for the pastoral counselor may be to

encourage every congregation to offer instructional programs on marriage


21/25


communication and conflict resolution. Young people, pre-marriage couples, post-

divorce individuals who want to do better in their next marriage, and couples facing life

transitions such as births of children and the emptying of the nest can benefit. All of the

skills described above can be taught in psychoeducational programs. Hopefully, in the

years ahead, in addition to helping wounded and conflictual couples to repair their

difficulties, pastoral counselors will include preventive marriage education in their

professional offerings.

Concluding Discussion

Can counselors enable all couples to resolve their conflicts collaboratively? Alas,

the goals of treatment for each couple will differ. Ideally, all couples would leave their

counseling sessions freed from disturbing negative emotions and behaviors, comfortable

that the issues that had been provoking tensions all had been resolved, and optimistic that

with their improved skills they would be able to sustain a cooperative positive

relationship in the years to come. In practice, a counselor can lead all the horses to water

but only some of them will drink.

Couples who are unable to resolve specific conflicts may be blocked because one

or both is unable to let go of their specific initial solution proposal, wants an all or

nothing solution, or insists on proving I am right and you are wrong. Sometimes one or

both individuals have sought counseling to find someone who will take their side in

proving to the other that whatever is wrong is the others fault rather than to find

solutions to the couples dilemmas. While a counselor can attempt to educate couples

with regard to the purposes of counseling, win-lose conflict resolution patterns such as

these can sometimes be tenaciously held. In the extreme, abusive persons and paranoid


22/25


individuals tend to present the most extreme challenges in this regard, and may not be

treatable.

The bottom line is that in order for collaborative conflict resolution patterns to be

effective, both parties have to proceed by cooperative rules. If one spouse wants to

pursue collaborative dialogue and the other remains entrenched in proving who is right

and who is wrong or rigidly fixed on blaming rather than problem-solving, the counselor

would be misleading the couple to continue to try to facilitate cooperative conflict

resolution dialogue.

The good news, however, is that many if not most couples are open to change.

Most are greatly relieved to discover that their problem is neither individual personality

flaws nor a couple mismatch, but rather that negotiating the many shared decisions of

married life can be difficult, and, with help, can be accomplished.


23/25


References

Deutsch, M., 1973. The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive

processes. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Fisher, R and Ertel, D, 1995. Getting ready to negotiate. NY: Penguin Books

Fisher, R. and Ury, W., 1981. Getting to yes. NY: Penguin Books.

Fuller, G, 1991. The negotiators handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

Gottman, J, Notarius, C, Gonso, J, and Markman, H., 1972. A couples guide to

communication. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press.

Gottman, 1999. The marriage clinic: A scientifically based marital therapy. NY:

Norton.

Hargrove, R., 1998. Mastering the art of creative collaboration. NY: McGraw-

Hill.

Heitler, S. (1987). Conflict resolution: A framework for integration. Journal of

Integrative and Eclectic Psychotherapy, 6,3, New York: Brunner Mazel.

Heitler, S. (1990). From conflict to resolution,. New York: Norton & Co.

Released by Norton as a trade paperback, Dec. '93.

Heitler, S. (1992). Working with couples in conflict(2-tape audio set). New York:

W.W. Norton & Co.

Heitler, S. (1994a). Conflict resolution for couples(2-tape audio set). Denver:

TherapyHelp.com.

Heitler, S. (1994b) Depression: A disorder of power (audio). Denver:

TherapyHelp.com.


24/25


Heitler, S. (1995a). The angry couple: Conflict-focused treatment (video). NY:

Newbridge, from the master therapist video series, Assessment & treatment of

psychological disorders. Current publisher, Denver: www.TherapyHelp.com.

Heitler, S. (1995b). Anxiety: Friend or foe? (audio). Denver:

www.TherapyHelp.com.

Heitler, S. (1995c). Resolving conflicts; lifting depression. Treatment Today,

Fall, p. 31.

Heitler, S. (1997). The power of two: Secrets to a strong & loving marriage.

Oakland: New Harbinger.

Heitler, S. (1998). Treating high-conflict couples. In Psychologists' desk

reference. Koocher, G., Norcross, J. & Hill, S. (eds.), New York: Oxford.

Heitler, S. (1999). Power of two marriage skills workshops: Teaching and

marketing manual. (curriculum guide) Denver:www.TherapyHelp.com.

Heitler, S. (2000). Conflict resolution and conflict-focused therapy. In

Comparative treatments of relationship dysfunction. Dattilio, F and Bevilacqua, L, eds.,

New York: Springer.

Heitler, S. (in press). Conflict resolution treatment perspectives on combining

individual and marriage therapy. J. Psychotherapy Integration.

Markman, H. and Hahlweg, K., 1993. The prediction and prevention of marital

distress: An international perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 13: 29-43.

Norcross, J., 1986. Levels of change. In Integrative dimensions of psychotherapy,

edited by J. O. Prochaska. International Journal of Eclectic Psychotherapy, 5(3): 256-74.


25/25


Notarius, C. and Markman, H., 1993. We can work it out. NY: Berkley

Publishing Group.

Raiffa, H., 1982. The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press

psychology, help) conflict resolution - essential skills for couples and their counselors

Documents