Case Study #1 in Conflict Management

In the case study Shallow Talk and Separate Spaces by Sandra Metts, several different forms of expressed conflict appear between our two main protagonists, Sarah and Russel. Throughout the beginning of the story, their conflicts escalate as they each repeatedly criticize one another and threaten each other’s face and identity. Their initial quarrel begins, in part, because both Sarah and Russel have draining days at work and they return home equally tired and irritable, setting the stage for tension. This exhaustion leads them to vocalize deeper frustrations within their marriage. At its core, Sarah desired Russel’s support and aid in household management, and Russel was seeking more quality and intimacy with Sarah. However, rather than addressing these through initial healthy communication tactics, the couple fell victim to several qualities of destructive conflict patterns.

Negative V Positive Assessment

Overall, Sarah and Russel both had a largely negative approach to their conflict. Sarah introduces tension to their initial conversation when Russel comes home and he begins to vent about his day, and she responds with, “Well, at least you don’t have that same stupid report from last week still hanging around your neck like an albatross, or an exam coming up that you haven’t studied for” (Metts, 2000, p.174). This response shifts the conversation into competitive territory. However, Russel pushes it into a destructive interaction with what Gottman calls a critical or harsh start-up when he states, “Of course I don’t. But then I wouldn’t let anyone walk all over me like you let those folks at C&G do to you” (Metts, 2000, p. 174). This remark is a direct attack on Sarah’s self-esteem and things begin to escalate quickly from here. Our textbook explains that this is not unusual, and that when conflict is started with a critical statement such as this one, that it often makes the other person defensive and can escalate things quickly (Berry et al., 2022, p. 174). 

Sarah and Russel continue to exhibit several more of Gottman’s Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse during this conflict, which consist of criticizing, defensiveness, stonewalling, and contempt (Berry et al., 2022, p. 22). Russel displays criticism and contempt as he uses sarcasm, hostility, and direct insults towards Sarah. He tells her, “Oh no, it’s the poor-me-routine,” and “You have the patience of a gnat and you’re just about as much fun” (Metts, 2000, p. 175). As Russel criticizes, Sarah vehemently defends herself, stating, “I do more than my share,” and “Well, at least I’m capable of getting a Master’s Degree” (Metts, 2000, p. 175). She deflects, further defends, and attacks Russel in return, their interaction “looking and sounding like ping-pong.” Our textbook tells us that this is a classic sign of defense (Berry et al., 2022, pg. 24). Finally, after Russel leaves, the two begin to stonewall each other for days following this interaction, the two avoiding each other and only engaging in shallow, necessary conversation (Metts, 2000, p. 177). 

Gender Effects Assessment

One of the tenets of our textbook is that all conflicts boil down to issues of power and self-esteem. Further, our textbook explains that “both genders are limited by self-esteem issues” (Berry et al., 2022, p. 69). I believe that Sarah and Russel’s conflict is riddled with these vulnerabilities. Each partner feels hurt by the other as their identity is threatened through sarcasm and criticism. Their feelings of low self-esteem are revealed consistently, from the beginning when Sarah states, “is it that my cooking is just too awful?” to the end, when Russel abruptly stands from the table and exclaims “I don’t know why you married such a stupid guy” (Metts, 2000, p. 175-176). Ultimately, these feelings of low self-esteem lead them into avoiding each other as they are afraid of what will happen if they confront the other. “Better to sit here” he (Russel) thought “and keep his ego intact than to try another discussion” (Metts, 2000, p. 176).

According to Gottman, typically women criticize more often than men do within marital conflicts (Berry et al., 2022, p. 22); however, in this story, I believe it was Russel who initiated most of the criticism and that this left Sarah highly defensive. This was evidenced in earlier quotes, and I believe it was the driving force behind the escalation of this conflict. Traditional gender patterns reappear, however, towards the end of the story. Russel takes an independent style for managing the conflict and attempts to be more helpful around the house, but only when Sarah isn’t present (Metts, 2000, p. 177). Conversely, Sarah presented with a more interpersonal style in management when she confided in her sister Betty, then took the first step in verbal reconciliation by initiating an apology and vocalizing shared goals (Metts, 2000, p. 177-178) (Berry et al., 2022, p. 71).

Trip Assessment

The four different types of goals in Sarah and Russell’s conflict, or their TRIP goals, primarily came into light at the end of the story when they sat down and had their conversation of reconciliation. The goals that could easily be identified within their fight were their topic goals, which in intimate relationships usually consist of things like how much time to spend together, how much sex to have, and budgeting logistics (Berry et al., 2022, p. 79). Sarah wanted Russel to aid more in household chores, while Russel ultimately wanted to spend more quality time with Sarah and to increase their intimate life. These topic goals take on a deeper layer relationally, when we see that even more than Sarah wants help around the house, she wants Russel’s support and to not feel resented. Russel, even though he wants these external desires of spending more time with his wife, also wants the deeper feeling of knowing that she’s happy in their relationship and to be with him (Metts, 2000, p. 178).

Throughout their conflict, we can also see that identity/face saving goals are prominent. Our textbook tells us that identity goals present in a way that works to preserve one’s self-esteem and self-identity (Berry et al., 2022, p. 85), and as the cycle of criticism and defense escalates between the two, we can see both Sarah and Russel work to defend their positive face and self-image. Finally, Sarah addresses the key question of process goals during reconciliation when she proposes focusing on complaints of behavior rather than personality and maintaining support instead of anger (Metts, 2000, p. 179). In doing this, Sarah is directly addressing their process of communication and offering solutions for improved outcomes. Russel agrees and builds on the conversation. Ultimately, their issues are addressed here in a healthy way, and through process goals, they’re able to set up a better plan for future conflicts. 

Conclusion

Since the argument primarily began with a harsh start-up, I believe that the best prevention strategy is to instead turn criticism into a constructive complaint. Both Sarah and Russel were tired and had valid reasons to feel frustrated, but as our textbook says, there is never a good enough reason to begin any conversation with criticism (Berry et al., 2022, p. 23). Instead of placing blame and triggering a pattern of identity threatening escalation, they could vocalize their feelings neutrally. Some ways they could practice this is by using “I feel” statements, describing the undesirable behavior, using nonjudgmental language, and asking for a specific behavioral change (Berry et al., 2022, p. 24). Because Sarah and Russel’s conflict was so full of criticism and identity threats, I think that implementing this change would be incredibly beneficial for their relationship moving forward.  

References

Berry, K., Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. (2022). Interpersonal conflict (11th ed.). McGraw Hill.

Metts, S. (2000). Shallow talk and separate spaces: Dealing with relational conflict. In Braithwaite, D. O., & Wood, J. T. Case studies in interpersonal communication: Processes and problems. Wadsworth.