Printed Page 264

Short-Term Conflict Resolutions

The approach you and your partner choose to handle the conflict usually results in one of five short-term conflict resolutions (Peterson, 2002). First, some conflicts end through separation, the sudden withdrawal of one person from the encounter. This resolution is characteristic of approaching conflict through avoidance. For example, you may be having a disagreement with your mother, when she suddenly hangs up on you. Or you’re discussing a concern with your roommate, when he unexpectedly gets up, walks into his bedroom, and shuts the door behind him. Separation ends the immediate encounter, but it does nothing to solve the underlying incompatibility of goals or the interference that triggered the dispute in the first place.

However, separation isn’t always negative. In some cases, short-term separation may help bring about long-term resolution. For example, if you and your partner have both used competitive or reactive approaches, your conflict may have escalated so much that any further contact may result in irreparable relationship damage. In such cases, temporary separation may help you both to cool off, regroup, and consider how to collaborate. You can then come back and work together to better resolve the situation.

Second, domination—akin to Schwarzenegger’s “Terminator” crashing into the police station—occurs when one person gets his or her way by influencing the other to engage in accommodation and abandon goals. Conflicts that end with domination are often called win-lose solutions. The strongest predictor of domination is the power balance in the relationship. In cases where one person has substantial power over the other, that person will likely prevail.

In some cases, domination may be acceptable. For example, when one person doesn’t feel strongly about achieving his or her goals, being dominated may have few costs. However, domination is destructive when it becomes a chronic pattern and one individual always sacrifices his or her goals to keep the peace. Over time, the consistent abandonment of goals can spawn resentment and hostility. While the accommodating “losers” are silently suffering, the dominating “victors” may think everything is fine because they are used to achieving their goals.

Third, during compromise, both parties change their goals to make them compatible. Often, both people abandon part of their original desires, and neither feels completely happy about it. Compromise typically results from people using a collaborative approach and is most effective in situations where both people treat each other with respect, have relatively equal power, and don’t consider their clashing goals especially important (Zacchilli et al., 2009). In cases where the two parties do consider their goals important, however, compromise can foster mutual resentment and regret (Peterson, 2002). Say that you and your spouse want to spend a weekend away. You planned this getaway for months, but your spouse now wants to attend a two-day workshop that same weekend. A compromise might involve you cutting the trip short by a night, and your spouse missing a day of his or her workshop, leaving both of you with substantially less than you originally desired.

Fourth, through integrative agreements, the two sides preserve and attain their goals by developing a creative solution to their problem. This creates a win-win solution in which both people, using a collaborative conflict approach, benefit from the outcome. To achieve integrative agreements, the parties must remain committed to their individual goals but be flexible in how they achieve them (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993). An integrative agreement for the example given above might involve rescheduling the weekend so that you and your spouse could enjoy both the vacation and the workshop.

Finally, in cases of especially intense conflict, structural improvements—people agreeing to change the basic rules or understandings that govern their relationship to prevent further conflict—may result. In cases of structural improvement, the conflict itself becomes a vehicle for reshaping the relationship in positive ways—rebalancing power or redefining expectations about who plays what roles in the relationship. Structural improvements are only likely to occur when the people involved control their negative emotions and handle the conflict collaboratively. Suppose your romantic partner keeps in touch with an ex via Facebook. Although you trust your partner, the thought of an ex chatting with him or her on a daily basis, and tracking your relationship through updates and posted photos, drives you crazy. After a jealousy-fueled fight, you and your partner might sit down and collaboratively hash out guidelines for how often and in what ways each of you can communicate with ex-partners, online and off.