See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248491201

You Always Hurt the One You Love: Strategies and Tactics in Interpersonal Conflict

Article  in  Communication Quarterly · January 1979

DOI: 10.1080/01463377909369319

CITATIONS READS

129 231

2 authors, including:

Mary ANNE Fitzpatrick

University of South Carolina System
139 PUBLICATIONS   3,121 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Health communication View project

Marriage and gender View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mary ANNE Fitzpatrick on 06 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ,.

·.).
....
'
lit.

\'fjt J /·.. L\ \·y.,\ .\,.<, ! '":. 1 !'n '1~; r!,, { t :J; .).t ;l. r.t '\ i
f-/rf: '."i l/ ': ~ . . ~ /\ ·,: ''1 /'..f_, r1cs I~~ .. ':Ti 1:!>J\~; ..~·~J~.Jf~L., ( :r::' . !'IJ~;-1

'rC' \'\".1\ Pf) \ \;~Jiii_,iJ c.,1;, s 1r1·--1! 1l<( .• r1c:.".L c:: I1\:\T~-~f,' ·
1

i\l"\1;r.'.. " 1 -;;,:, ~-) ;< /J!;. :f.\"_\? · 1\Nf) >~/'' ~T. l'.Z: .. {)\1 [11HJ\.;

t '·_.,: ,! :., .• : ...

j), ! 1 1r /' t !, ; l l; 1 1 1. J,. , 1 \ u , l . ; I}," 1Jl J1 /~ r n I! c 1:, c; n rl
1'"111 r;J I,.~ .... ~tj\.l! :rn
'[l·lr-' r.;f~Ji1::~,:1,;~ •t !J'l' :CJ J-~: . ~ C)\\jl\1 L- ~:-:t.;[1•\.C.I::
/\ j,~', ~Pt.~:\~·;_~ 'rC) (.,' JL(Jl;l1'
Jc IJ1t .• ;:rz:--. n·' t o\·r=r

.r
"·
YOU ALWAYS HURT THE ONE YOU LOVE:
STRATEGIES AND TACTICS IN
INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT
MARY ANNE FITZPATRICK and JEFF WINKE

The present study delineates the five most frequently utilized strategies of relational
conflict resolution. Three propositions were tested. In examining the first proposition,
same and opposite sex friends indicated that they utilized significantly different
conflict strategies. In testing proposition two, males and females reported that they
employ different' strategies with their same but not opposite sex friends. In probing the
third proposition, frequently used conflict strategies discriminated between levels of
relational satisfaction.

In the preface to his work on power first
published in 1938, Bertrand Russell's explicit
concern was to prove that the "fundamental
concept in social science is power in the same
sense in which energy is the fundamental
concept in physics." 1 Power has been the
focus of study across a number of disciplines.
In the field of communication, it has been
traditionally studied in the area of persua-
sion. More recently power, relabeled control,
has been examined in the context of long-
term relationships 2
Just as one does not study energy directly,
the research reported in this paper does not
study power directly. Indeed, there is a grow-
ing concern in the area of interpersonal rela-
tionships that the direct examination of
power, at least what has been attempted to
Mary Anne Fitzpatrick (Ph .D., T emple University, 1976)
is an a ssistant professor in the Department of Commu-
nication Arts at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Jeffrey Winke (M.A., University of Wisconsin-Mil-
waukee, 1978) is an instructor in the Continuing Edu-
cation Di vision at the University of Wisconsin-Mil-
waukee.
This paper was initially accepted or processed by the
previous editor.
1 . Bertrand Russell , Power: A New Social Analysis
(New York-: W.W. Norton. 1938).
2. Paul M. Ericson and Edna L. Rogers. "New Proce-
dures for Analyzing Relational Communication," Fam-
ily Process , 12 (1973). pp. 245-267. Edna L. Rogers and R.
Vin~ent Farace, "Analysis of Relational Communication
in Dyads: New Measurement Procedures," Human
Communication Research , 1 {1975), 222-239.
date, is not possible. 3 Rather than focus on
power (the ability of an individual to change
the behavior of other members of a social sys-
tem), this research examines the struggle to
gain a controlling influence in a significant
interpersonal relationship.
To study power in the context of interper-
sonal relationships, one can examine its
bases, 4 its outcomes. 5 and/or its processes. 6
Communication researchers interested in fo-
cusing on the processes of power are fac ed
with a large body of information, often con-
flicting, that has studied power in the deci-
sion-making and problem-solving areas. ;
What has been relatively unexplored in the
study of power processes, particularly in the
relational area, is the study of the tactics of
3. James L. Turk, "Power as the Achievement of Ends:
A Problematic Approach in Family and Small Grou;:,
Research," Family Process, 13 (1974), 39-52. James L.
Turk, "Uses and Abuses of Family Power," in Ronald c.
Cromwell and David H. Olson, eds., Power in Famil ies
(New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975), pp. 80-9-l.
4. See John R. French and Bertram H.. Raven. ' 'T!::e
Bases of Social Power," in D. Cartwright, ed., Studies b
Social Power (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
1962).
· 5. See William E. Pollard and Terrence R. ~!itchell.
"Decision-Theory Analysis of Social Power," Psycholog-
ical Bulletin , 78 (1972), 433-446.
6. See Paul M. Ericson and Edna L. Rogers. 'Sew
Procedures for Analyzing Relational Communicauon...
Family Process, 12 (1973), 245-267.
7. See David H. Olson and Ronald E. c_.-omweU.
"Power in Families," in Ronald E. Cromwell and Da,i d
H. Olson, eds .. Power in Families (New York:John W Uey
& Sons, 1975).

WINTER 1979 3
 interpersonal conflict. The purpose of this
research is to examine the tactics utilized by
individuals in interpersonal relationships to . sonal attraction for best friends and lovers: 1 ~
gain compliance from a valued other.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Individuals bound together in an interper-
sonal relationship will inevitably experience
periods of tension, anger, or anxiety. 8 Indeed,
as relational partners cope with the new, am-
biguous, and stressful situations that present
themselves, conflicts can be expected to
emerge as needs and desires change or be-
come incompatible. 9
Realizing this inevitability, a noted theo-
rist10 suggested that in order to understand
interpersonal relationships, we need a de-
scription of the tactics or behaviors of given
individuals in conflict situations. This de-
scription eventually will allow an examina-
tion of the repetitive exchanges between
partners as well as a description of the total
system that any set of relationships produces.
Although these observations were made a
number of years ago, we still do not have an
adequate description of the tactics that rela-
tional partners use in their power struggles.
Indeed, there remains an "almost studied
avoidance of the tactical nature of such strug-
gles by social scientists and philosophers, de-
spite the history of man's struggle with man.
We do not have a taxonomy of power tac-
tics ... " 11
The main purpose of this research is to de-
velop a description of the tactics used in rela-
tional conflict situations. Once this descrip-
tion has been accomplished from the in-
sider's perspective on the relationship, these
tactics can then be compared on a number of
relevant dimensions.
One of these dimensions emerges from the
growing body of literature that suggests that
an important determinant of the kind of
communication individuals are likely to en-
gage in is the definition that they have
evolved for their relationship. 12 Recent re-
search has established differences in the in-
8. For a discussion of the inevitability of conflict in
interpersonal relationships see Robert J. Doolittle, Orien-
tations to Communication and Conflict (Chicago: Sci-
ence Research Associates, Inc., 1976), pp. 10-16.
9. George Bach and Peter Wyden, The Intimate Enemy
(New York: William Morrow. 1989).
10. Jay Haley.S trategies of Psychotherupy (New York:
Grune and Stratton, 1963).
terpersonal behaviors of same and opposite
sex best friends; 13 in the bases of interper-
and in the exchange orientations of those who
are married versus friends. 15 More broadly. in
attempting to develop a taxonomy of persua-
sive strategies, Miller and his colleagues 16
found significant differences in the likely
persuasive strategies chosen by individuals
in interpersonal and in noninterpersonal re-
lationships. Thus, based on the evidence that
communication between same and opposite
sex friends is essentially different, the follow-
ing is proposed:
Proposition 1: Individuals in same sex rela-
tionships report significantly
different conflict tactics than
individuals in opposite sex re-
lationships.
There is , of course, a considerable volume
11. Ibld., p. 161.
12. Teru L. Morton, James F. Alexander. and Irwin
Altman, " Communication and Relationship Definition."
in Gerald R. Miller, ed., Explorations in Interpersonai
Communication (Beverly Hills: Sage Publication s. Inc ..
1976), pp. 105-125. Michael E. Roloff, "Communication
Strategies. Relationships and Relational Changes." in
Gerald R. Miller, ed., Explorations in Interpersonal
Communication (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. lnc ..
1976), pp. 1 73-195. Mary Anne Fitzpatrick." A Typolog-
ical Approach to Communication in Relationships .'· in
Brent D. Ruben , ed., Communication Yearbook 1 (:-:ew
Brunswick, N.j.: Transaction Books. 1977). 263-275.
Mary Anne Fitzpatrick and Patricia Best, "Dyadic Ad-
justment in Traditional. Inde pendent and Separate Rela-
tionships: A Validation Study," Communication Mono-
graphs, in press.
13. Arthur P. Bochner, Edmund P. Kaminski, and
Mary Anne Fitzpatrick. "The Conceptual Domain of In-
terpersonal Communicat:on Behavior: A Factor Analytic
Study," Human Communication Research. 3 (19i7).
291-302. Mary Anne Fitzpatrick and Arthur Bochner.
" Insider and Outsider Perspectives on Self and Other:
Male-Female Differences in the Perception of Interper-
sonal Behaviors," Sex Roles, accepted for publication.
1979.
14. Charles R. Berger, Marilyn D. Weber, Mary Ellen
Munley, and James T. Dixon, "Interpersonal Relation-
ship Levels and Interpersonal Attraction, .. in Brent D.
Ruben, ed., Communication Yearbook 1 (New Bru.,s-
wick, N.J.: Transac,tion Books, 1977), 245-261.
15. Bernard Murstein, Mary Cerrato, and :Vlarcia
MacDonald, "A Theory and Investigation of the Effect of
Exchange-Orientation in Marriage and Friendship.''
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 9 (1977). 543-5-18.
16. Gerald R. Miller, Frank Boster, Michael Roloff. and
David Seibold, "Compliance-Gaining Message
Strategies," Communication Monographs, 44 (19 7i).
37-51.

4 COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY

•
L
of research supporting the notion that males
and females interact di fferently. 17 In the con-
flict area, a number o t' writers maintain that
men and women have different conflict
styles. 18 Frost, for example, describes women
as more likely to either avoid conflict or have
temper tantrums while she finds men more
likely to be competitive or exploitative. 19
Johnson found that men prefer to use exper-
tise, formal legitimacy, and direct informa-
tion when confronted with a conflict situ-
ation while women chose strategies based on
referent power, helplessness, and indirect in-
formation. 20 Based on these findings, we have
derived the following·:
Proposition 2: Males and females report signif-
icantly different conflict tactics
in both same and opposite sex
relationships.
The structure of conflict resolution in
long-term interpersonal relationships has
often been associated with relational satisfac-
tion. 21 A number of studies have found that
satisfied and dissatisfied couples can be dis-
criminated by how they handle conflict in
their relationship.22 Since the process of in-
teraction during conflici has been established
as a major determinant of relational satisfac-
tion, 23 we have advanced the following prop-
osition:
17. Fora synthesis of over 1,000 studies in the psycho-
logical literature, see Eleanor E. Maccoby and Carol N.
Jacklin, The Psychology of Sex Differences (Stanford,
Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1974).
18. Edward E. Sampsnn and Marion Kursusk, "Age,
Sex, Class and Race Differences in Response to a Two-
Person, Non-Zero Sum Game," Journal of Conflict Reso-
lution, 9 (1965), 212-220.
19. Joyce H. Frost, "The Influence of Female and Male
Communication Styles on Conflict Strategies: Problem
Areas," paper presented at the !CA Convention, Berlin,
West Germany, June 1977.
20. Peter B. Johnson, "Social Power and Sex-Role
Stereotyping," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univer-
sity of California, Los Angeles.
21. Robert 0 . Blood and Donald M. Wolfe, Husbands
and Wives (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1960). Lee Rainwa-
ter, Family Design (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.,
1965). Yi-Chuang Lu, "Marital Roles and Marriage Ad-
justment," Sociology and Social Research, 36 (1952),
364-368.
22. John Cottman, Howard Markman, and Cliff
Notarius, "The Topography of Marital Conflict: A Se-
quential Analysis of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior,"
Journal of Marriage and the Family 9 (l977), 461-477.
23. ·G eorge Bach and Peter Wyden, The Intimate
WINTER 1979
: · •. ;r;,¼,- ..., , ... ,;l,i 0!"1~
Proposition 3: Individuals who experience re-
lational satisfaction report sig-
nificantly different conflict tac-
tics than individuals who expe-
rience relational dissatisfac-
tion.
Subjects
The sample consisted of 269 students en-
rolled in undergraduate classes at an urban
university. 24 One hundred eighty-three
females and 86 males participated in this
study.
Procedures
The instrument utilized in this study was
the Kipnis' Interpersonal Conflict Scale
(ICS). 25 This scale consists of 44 statements
about the use of certain conflict tactics in
relationships. 26 The items are rated on a
nine-point scale according to how often each
is employed as a way to gain compliance
from the target.
In a ser.i es of studfes reported in Kipnis,
these 44 items were administered to small
samples of subjects , varying the target. 27 In
these studies, however, the samples were
usually so small relative to the number of
items that little confidence can be placed in
the results of the factor analyses. 28 For this
reason, one of the secondary purposes of this
Enemy (New York: William Morrow, 1969). Harold L.
Raush, William A. Barry, Richard K. Hertel, and Mary
Ann Swain. Communication, Conflict arn:J Marriage (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974). Virginia Satir,Peoplemak-
ing (Palo Alto, Calif.: Science and Behavior Books, Inc.,
1972).
24. Over 90% of the students attending this university
live off-campus in the community. The students are
characteristically older than the average university stu-
dent. Over 70% of the students at this university hold
down some type of employment.
25. David Kipnis, The Power-Holders (New York:
Academic Press, 1976).
26. The original items for the scale were generated by
asking a number of graduate and undergraduate students
as well as an independent sample of married individuals
to write a short essay describing their last disagreement
with a close personal friend. When these essays were
content-analyzed, a large item pool emerged. A group of
trained raters took this item pool, eliminated the duplica•
tions and rewrote the ambiguous items. At the end of this
procedure, 44 items remained.
27. Kipnis.
28. Ray Tucker and Larry Chase, "Factor Analysis in
Human Communication Research," Paper presented at
the !CA Convention, Chicago, 1975.
5
research is to test and validate the factor
structure of the ICS and examine its internal
consistency.
Each respondent in this study was asked to
estimate how often they used these 44 con-
flict tactics in the past few months with (1)
their closest friend of the opposite sex, and (2)
their closest friend of the same sex. Respon-
dents were also asked to indicate the nature of
this opposite sex relationship (married, en-
gaged, exclusively involved with this indi-
vidual, seriously involved with this individ-
ual more than .others , only casually involved
with this individual), and how satisfied they
were with both their same and opposite sex
relationships. Respondents were encouraged
to report the actual tactics they.employed in
interpersonal conflict situations rather than
the tactics they wished they had employed.
Design and Analyses
Responses of the subjects concerning
commonly used conflict strategies in their
same and opposite sex friendships were ana-
lyzed separately. In order to examine the un-
derlying structure of the ICS for both same
and opposite sex friendships, both sets of rat-
ings were factor analyzed.
For both same and opposite sex friend-
ships, the 44 variables for the 269 respon-
dents were intercorrelated. The resultant
Pearson Product-Moment Intercorrelation
Matrices were submitted to a principal com-
ponents analyses with unities inserted in the
diagonal. Cattell's Scree test applied to the
eigenvalues, and the amount of variance ac-
counted for by each factor, were used to de-
termine that five factors should be rotated for
each relationship. Each intercorrelation ma-
trix was then submitted to a principal axis
factor analysis with squared multiple correla-
tions as the estimate of the communalities.
Factors were orthogonally rotated in the Kai-
ser varimax case. To be considered signifi-
cantly associated with a factor, an item's pri-
mary loading was required to be at least .40.
Additionally, its secondary loading could not
be more than 50% of that primary loading. 29
Five factors emerged for both same and op-
posite sex r~lationships. Since these factors
were conceptually similar, they were given
the same names. Thirty-three items were re-
29. A copy of the Interpersonal Conflict Scale as well
as the factor loading tables for both the same and oppo-
site se~ friendship structures may be obtained by writing
to the senior author.
6 COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY
tained in the opposite sex factor structure
while 35 were retained in the same sex struc-
ture. On each factor , at least 50% of the items
on the .opposite sex structure were identical
to those on the same sex structure. The fol-
lowing applies to the tactics that are salient in
both same and opposite sex relationships .
The first factor on the ICS suggests a strat-
egy of diversion, perhaps in an attempt to
avoid open conflict. Those who score highly
on this factor resort to techniques such as
getting the other in a good mood or being
especially charming or pleasant before bring-
ing up the disagreement. Similar to Manvel!
and Schmitt's liking where an actor is friend-
ly and helpful to get the target in a "good
frame of mind," the items on this factor sug-
gest that one party is essentially manipulat-
ing the other. 3 ° For this reason, we have la-
beled this factor, the Strategy of Manipula-
tion.
The second factor of the ICS also implies a
strategy of conflict avoidance. The dogmatic
assertions that comprise this factor undoubt-
edly preclude any open discussion of conflict
issues. High scores on this factor keep repeat-
ing their point of view until the other agrees
with them, refuse to discuss issues unless the
other gives in, and generally feel that others
h ave no right to disagree with them. These
individuals do not take the opinions of their
partners into account during conflict. Indeed,
these tactics are close to what some authors
have labeled the "steamroller technique." 3 1
For these reasons, we have called this factor
the stragegy of nonnegotiation.
The items that comprise the third factor
reflect a conflict strategy based on the use of
affect. Individuals who score highly on this
factor resort often to crying, sulking, pouting ,
and showing anger to gain compliance. For
this reason, as well as the fact that this dimen-
sion also includes appealing to the other's
love and affection as well as promising to be
more loving in the future, we haye labeled
this factor the strategy of emotional appeal.
The fourth factor on the ICS · illustrates a
strat_e gy based on demoralizing the target. In-
dividuals who adopt this strategy generally
30. Gerald Marwell and David R. Schmitt. "Dimen-
sions of Compliance-Gaining Behavior: An Empirical
Analysis," Sociometry 30 (1 967), 350-364.
31. Harold L. Raush. William A. Barry, Richard K.
Hertel, and Mary Ann Swain, Communication. Conflict
and Marriage (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974).
 •
'
TABLE 1
Factor Categories and Representative Tactics for Interpersonal Conflict Strategies
Factor Category Representative Tactics

Strategy of Be especially s weet. charming. helpful and pleasant before bring ing up the
Manipulation subject of disagreeme nt
Act so nice that he/s he later can not refuse when I ask him/her for my own
way
Make this person believe that he/she is doing me a favo r by giving in
Strategy of Refuse to discuss or even listen to the s ub ject unless he/she gi ves in
Non-negotiation
Keep repeating my point of view until he1s he gives in
A rgue until this perso n chilnges hi s her mind
Strategy of Emotional Appea l to this person 's love and affection for me
Appeal
Promise to be mo re lov ing in the future
Get angry and demand that he,she give in
Strategy of Personal Withhold affection and act co ld until he/she gives in
Rejection
Ignore him/her
Make the other person jealous by pretending to lose interest in him/her
Strategy of Empathic Discuss what would ha ppen if we each accepted the other's point of view
. Understanding Talk about why we do not agree
Hold mutua l talks witho ut argument

disconfirm the behavior of the other. 32 They
attempt to make their partner feel stupid, ab-
surd, and worthless.
Similar to Marwell and Schmitt's negative
altercasting, the main thrust of these items
involves attacking the self-worth of the other
in order to gain compliance. For this reason,
we have called this factor the strategy of per-
sonal rejection.
The items that form factor five suggest a
more cooperative conflict strategy than those
on the previous factors. The tactics that de-
fine this factor suggest holding mutual talks,
stating a point of view calmly, and attempting
to understand the other's perspective. These
tactics are "other-centered" and indicate that
the respondent has made some attempt to
come to the conflict with a degree of tenta-
tiveness. 33 Indee d, they suggest that interper-
sonal conflicts may be more than zero-sum
games in which one partner wins at the ex-
pense of the other. For these reasons, we have
called this factor the strategy of empathic un-
derstanding.
Table 1 lists factor categories and represen-
tative items for each factor.
For opposite sex relationships, the strate-
gies arranged according to variance contribu-
tions are: manipulation, nonnegotiation.
emotional appeal, personal rejection, and
32. Paul Watzlawick. Janet H. Beavin. and Don D.
Jackson. Pragmatics of Human Communica tion (New
York: Norton. 1967).
33. A. Lynn Scoresby, The Marriage Dialogue (Read-
ing, Mass. : Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. , 1977).
empathic understanding. The overall alpha
reliability for this scale is .79. In same sex
relationships, the strategies arranged accord-
ing to variance contributions are: n onnegotia-
tion, personal rejection, manipulation, em-
pathic understanding , and emotional appeal.
The overall alpha reliability for this scale is
.75. 34 Table 2 lists the alpha reliability for
each of the subscales.
RESULTS
Opposite Sex Relationships
The initial research questions were tested
by a hierarchical stepwise nonorthogonal
multivariate analysis of variance. 35 A 4 x 2
34. See, Jum C. Nunnally. Psychometric Theory (New
York: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1967) for a discussion of alpha
reliability.
35. The question tested by this design was : Does the
sex of the subject contribute anything more to our knowl-
edge of conflict strategies once we know the type of
relationship ? The main effect for the sex of the subject is
entered into our model after the type of relationship
under consideration. In this way. the parameters that do
not produce si gnificant differences can be dropped from
the model after s ignificance testing . This provides a be-
tter estimate of the cell means for the reduced model.
John Overall and James Klett, Applied Multivariate
Analysis (New York: McGraw Hill, 1972). Jeremy D.
Finn. A General Model for Multivariate Analysis (~ew
York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. Inc., 1974). Arthur
Bochner and Mary Anne Fitzpatrick, "Multivariate
Analysis of Variance: Techniques. Models and Applica-
tions," in Peter Monge and Joseph Cappella. eds .. Mul-
tivariate Research in Communication (New York:
Academic Press. in press).

WINTER 1979 7
 TABLE 2
Alpha Reliabilities for the ICS
Strategy of Manipulation
Strategy of Nonnegotiation
Strategy of Emotional Appeal
Strategy of Personal Rejection
Strategy of Empathic Understanding
multivariate analysis of variance was com-
puted with the relationship type (married ,
exclusively involved. seriously involved
with this individual more others, only casu-
ally involved with this person)36 and the sex
of the respondent as the independent vari-
ables and the averaged scale scores for each of
the five conflict resolution strategies as the
dependent variables. The multivariate anal-
ysis of variance, using the Wilks Lambda cri-
terion, produced only a main effect for rela-
tionship type. 37
Since neither the sex of the respondent nor
the relationship type by sex interaction were
significant, the sex of the respondent parame-
ter was dropped from the model. A one-way
multivariate analysis of variance with rela-
tionship type as the independent variable and
the five conflict resolution strategies as the
dependent variables was calculated. This
multivariate analysis of variance. using the
Wilks Lambda criterion, produced a signifi-
cant effect for relationship type (F=4.47;
d.f. =15, 721; p < .0001).
Bartlet's chi-square test indicated that both
the first (chi square=64.75; d .f. = 15;
p<.0001) and the second (chi square = 21.63;
d.f.=8; p < .005) discriminant functions were
significant. This reveals that the four rela-
tionship types can best be discriminated
along two independent dimensions.
The significant discriminators among the
groups on the first function are the manipula-
tion tactics (.56) and nonnegotiation tactics
(.41) as well as emotional appeal (- .91) and
empathic understanding (- .59) tactics. An
36. Since only 14 subjects indicated that they were
engaged, this category was collapsed with what we
called "exclusively involved." Thus, there were 54 mar-
ried. 65 exclusively involved. 78 seriously involved. and
72 casually involved with their opposite sex others in
this study.
37. In the hierarchia l model. neither the main effect
for sex (F= t.5 7; d.f. =5. 709; p<.16) nor the relationship
type by sex interaction (F = t.11; d.f.= 15, 709; p<. 34)
were significant.
8 COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY
Opposite Same
Sex Friends Sex Friends
.80 .82
.81 .72
.72 .72
.76 .71
.70 .72
examination of the group centroids on the
first function indicates that the casually in-
volved have the clearest profile on this func-
tion.
Those who are casually involved with one
another frequently utilize either manipula-
tive or nonnegotiation tactics to resolve their
interpersonal conflicts. The casually in-
volved, however, resort less often than any
other relational type to either emotional ap-
peals or empathic understanding in settling
their differences .
The significant discriminators among the
four groups on the second discriminant func-
tion are emotional appeal tactics (- .82), re-
jection tactics (.70). and empathic under-
standing tactics (.59). The group centroids on
the second function indicate that married in-
dividuals have the clearest profile on this
function.
Those who are married utilize more emo-
tional appeals and more personal rejection
than any other relational group. The married ,
however, use empathic understanding less
frequently than either the exclusively or the
seriously involved. Indeed, the married are
only about as likely to use empathic under-
standing as are the casually involved.
The third research question focused on the
differences in conflict strategies of those in
highly satisfying versus those in less satisfy-
ing relationships. On the basis of the ratings
of their relationships, individuals were
placed into either the very satisfied or the less
satisfied category. 38
38. In order to be placed in the highly satisfied cate-
gory. individuals had to score at least a 22 out of a poss i-
ble 27 on the relational satisfaction questions. A high
level was set because the data were severely negatively
skewed. This is very common when asking for global
evaluations of interpersonal relationships. See. for
example. Susan R. Orden and Norman M. Bradburn.
··Dimensions of Marriage Happiness." American Journal
of Sociology, 73 (1968). 715-731 . Karen S. Renee, "Corre-
lates of Dissatisfaction in Marriage." Journa l of Marriage
and the Family, 32 (1970), 54-66. Given these conditions.
159 subjects were in the highly satisfied group; 110 were
in the less satisfied group.
 .
(
'•
A one-way multivariate analysis of var-
iance was computed with relational satisfac-
tion as the independent variable and the five
conflict resolution strategies as the depen-
dent variables. The overall F test for the
equality of mean vectors, using the Wilks
Lambda criterion, was significant (F=2. 72;
d.f. =5, 263; p<.02) indicating that there was
a difference between the very satisfied and
the less satisfied in their conflict strategies.
Bartlett's chi square test indicated that the
discriminant functions was significant
(chi square=13.34; d.f.=5; p<.02). An exam-
ination of the standardized discriminant
function coefficient suggested that the differ-
ences between the groups can best be ac-
counted for by nonnegotiation (- .4 7) and
empathic understanding tactics (- .91) as
well as manipulation tactics (.66). Those who
are not satisfied with their current relation-
ship are more likely to use nonnegotiation
and empathic understanding tactics yet less
likely to utilize manipulation tactics to re-
solve conflicts in their relationship.
Same Sex Friendships
Within same sex friendships, male and
female differences in conflict resolution
strategies were compared. 39 The F test for the
equality of mean vectors, using the Wilks
Lambda criterion, was significant (F=S.13;
d.f.=5, 165; p<.003), indicating that males
and females differ in the types of conflict res-
olution strategies they utilize with their same
sex friends.
Bartlett's Chi Square test (chi
square =24.07; d.f.=5; p<.0003) indicated
that the first discriminant function was sig-
nificant. The standardized discriminant
function coefficients revealed that males and
females could best be separated on the non-
negotiation tactics (1.18) as well as personal
rejection tactics (- .75), empathic under-
standing (- .43), and emotional appeal tactics
(-.33).
The means indicate that while males were
much more likely to engage in nonnegotia-
tion tactics with their best friends, females
were •more likely to attempt to resolve their
difficulties by personal rejection, empathic
understanding, or emotional appeal tactics
with their same sex best friend.
39. Since there was such a great disparity between the
numbers of males and females who participated in this
study (M = 85; F = 184), 98 females were randomly elimi-
nated from this analysis.
WINTER 1979
When the more and the less satisfied same
sex friendships were compared on conflict
strategies, no significant differences were
found (F=1A5; d.f.=5, 263; p<.20).
Comparisons Between Opposite and Same
Sex Friendships
One of the primary purposes of this re-
search was to compare the conflict strategies
utilized in same and opposite sex relation-
ships. In order to examine these differences in
detail, the differences between same and op-
posite sex relationships were compared on
each response to the JCS. The data were sub-
mitted to a treatment by subjects design. 40
Forty-four separate analyses of variance were
computed. Responses to the items on the JCS
were the dependent variables with the rela-
tional type (same or opposite) as the inde-
pendent variable. Since there were 44 com-
parisons to be made, we were concerned with
the error rate in relation to the experiment as a
whole, Consequently, we set the ·alpha level
for the comparisons at .002. 41
Of the 44 items, 17 (39%) were not statisti-
cally significant (p<.002). In other words,
there were no significant differences in same
and opposite sex relationships on these 17
items. Twenty-five of the remaining items in-
dicated that individuals when arguing with
an opposite sex other were more likely to
utilize these tactics than when they argued
with a same sex best friend.
An interesting pattern emerges when the
data are examined in detail. On every item
that we have labeled an emotional appeal tac-
tic, opposite sex relationships emerge as sig-
nificantly different from same sex relation-
ships (p<.002). With an opposite sex other,
regardless of the level of emotional involve-
ment, one is more likely to use emotional
appeals in a conflict situation than one is with
a same sex friend.
40. Edward F. Linquist.Design and Analysis of Exper-
iments in Psychology and Education (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin & Co., 1956).
41. An alternativ!l approach would have been to
utilize a repeated measures multivariate analysis of var-
iance. given the similarities between the same and oppo-
site sex factor structures. However, since we were in-
terested in examining the differences between same and
opposite relationships on each tactic specifically. we
chose the statistically equivalent option of protecting the
alpha and computing individual comparisons. See
Thomas A. Ryan, ''Multiple Comparisons in Psychologi-
cal Reseaxch," Psychological Bulletin 56 (1959) , 26-47.
9
 On every item that we labeled as a personal
rejection tactic, opposite sex relationships
emerge as significantly different than same
sex friendships. In opposite sex relation-
ships, one is more likely to utilize personal
rejection tactics than one is with a same sex
best friend.
On the majority of items (except one) that
we have labeled empathic understanding,
there are no significant differences between
same and opposite sex relationships. In other
words, respondents reported that in settling
relational conflicts they were equally likely to
attempt empathic understanding with their
same sex as with their opposite sex best
friend .
There were significant differences between
same and opposite sex friendships on approx-
imately one-half of the items that were desig-
nated as nonnegotiation tactics. If the tactics
that define this strategy can be considered on
a continuum, those that reflect significant dif-
ferences between same and opposite sex rela-
tionships are those that are the more dogma-
tic of the nonnegotiation tactics. In each case
where there were significant differences be-
tween same and opposite sex relationships,
individuals reported being more likely to use
these strident nonnegotiation tactics more
readily in their opposite sex relationships
than in their same sex friendships.
With approximately one-half of the items
that we have labeled as manipulation tactics,
there were significant differences between
same and opposite sex relationships. In every
case in which there were significant differ-
ences, respondents indicated that they were
more likely to utilize manipulation tactics in
opposite sex relationships than in same sex
friendships. The items on which these differ-
ences emerged suggested that the most uti-
lized tactics to manipulate the opposite sex
other were those especially designed to put
the other in a "good mood" before bringing
up the subject of the disagreement.
DISCUSSION
Working from an insider's perspective on re-
lationships, we have been able to enumerate
some basic tactics utilized by individuals
during conflicts with their intimates. These
basic tactics were grouped to form five broad
strategies: manipulation, nonnegotiation ,
Paul Games, "Multiple Comparison of Means." Ameri-
can Educational Research Journal 8 (1971), 531-565.
10
emotional appeal, personal rejection, and
empathic understanding.
In support of Proposition 1, we have seen
the same and opposite sex others utilize sig-
nificantly different strategies in their rela-
tional conflicts. In opposite sex relationships,
our respondents were more likely to adopt the
strategies of emotional appeal and personal
rejection as means of inducing compliance in
the other. Opposite sex intimates were also
more likely to use the extreme tactics within
the manipulation and nonnegotiation strate-
gies. These findings, however, are dependent
upon the level of involvement within the op-
posite sex relationship. Those who exhibited
the most commitment to the relationship (i.e.,
the married) indicated that they were more
likely to utilize the strategies of emotional
appeal or personal rejection to gain their own
way. Those who espoused the least involve-
ment in the relationship indicated that they
often used the strategies of manipulation and
nonnegotiation.
A number of conflict theorists maintain
that we chose our strategies based upon the
risk involved in implementing them. 42 Indi-
viduals in a more committed relationship
generally have less concern about the
strength of the relational bonds. 43 Conse-
quently , they employ more spontaneous and
emotionally toned strategies in their rela-
tional conflicts. As commitment increases,
these strategies are probably perceived as less
risky since the cohesiveness of the relation-
ship precludes easy termination. 44
In the less committed relationships, the co-
hesiveness of the partners is still being
negotiated. As a result, they are more inclined
to utilize conflict avoidance strategies. Un-
doubtedly, it would be too risky for them to
employ the more open conflict strategies of
the firmly committed.
In testing Proposition 2, we found no sig-
nificant differences in the conflict strategies
adopted by males and females with their op-
posite sex others. A number of significant
differences did emerge, however, in male and
female same sex friendships. Males reported
42. James T. Tedeschi. The Social Infl uence Processes
(New York: Aldine, 1972).
43. George Levinger, "Sources of Marital Dissatisfac-
tion Among Applicants for Divorce." American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry. 36 (1965). 803-807.
44. George Simmel. "The Sociology of Conflict,"
American Journal of Sociology 9 (1904). 490-525 , 672-
689, 798-811.
COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY
 that they were more likely to exercise non-
negotiation strategies with their best friend.
Females indicated that they attempted to in-
duce compliance in a friend by the strategies
of personal rejection, empathic understand-
ing or emotional appeals.
Previous research indicates that males con-
sider themselves more detached and control-
ling in their same sex friendships. 45 The find-
ing in this study that males favor nonnegotia-
tion as a conflict strategy may represent a
move towards _control. The specific tactics
employed in the strategy of nonnegotiation
suggest that the issue of dominance is highly
salient in male friendships.
The predominant strategies employed by
females seemed to be based in their greater
social acuity. 4 6 To devalue a friend, a female
needs to know what matters most to her. To
appeal to a friend's emotions , a female needs
to select those appeals that would be most
effective with a given individual. Finally, to
understand a friend , a female needs to take
into account the viewpoint of her friend. The
dimension underlying these strategies is em-
pathy. Females use this empathy to gain
compliance from their best friends.
In testing Proposition 3, we found no sig-
nificant differences in the conflict strategies
employed in satisfied versus dissatisfied
same sex friendships . Differences did
emerge, however, in opposite sex relation-
ships. Those who are highly satisfied with
these relationships are more likely to resort to
a strategy of manipulation while those who
are less satisfied rely more often on nonnego-
tiation and empathic understanding to gain
compliance from the other.
Support for our findings comes from the
naturalistic observations of Rausch and his
associates. 47 In this study, couples who con-
sistently avoided conflict with one another by
utilizing techniques similar to what we have
45. Fitzpatrick and Bochner, 1979.
46. Martin L. Hoffman. ··sex Differences in Empathy
and Related Behaviors," Psychological Bulletin, 84
(1977), 712-722.
WINTER 1979
View publication stats
labeled the strategy of manipulation reported
that their relationships were highly satisfac-
tory. Our data supports this interpretation
and also indicates that in relationships which
are minimally satisfying, couples are more
likely to engage in open conflict by using
nonnegotiation and even empathic under-
standing. The causal connection between
these variables has yet to be examined.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTlJRE RESEARCH
By focusing on the strategies used to re-
solve relational conflicts, we have studied
one aspect of interpersonal power. This study
has attempted to provide an insider's per-
spective on the issue of control in same and
opposite sex relationships. Specifically, we
have looked at the process of control as mani-
fested in the strategies most frequently
adopted to gain compliance in relational con-
flict situations.
Now that we have developed a description
of the strategies utilized by individuals in
relational power struggles, we need to exam-
ine the interactive nature of these tactics. A
coding system could be devised based upon
the specific tactics which comprise each
strategy. This coding system would allow us
to examine such questions as: Do relational
partners generate symmetrical responses, i.e., i
do they employ tactics from the same strat-
egy? Or do they engage in complementary
t
I
J
interactions, i.e., use tactics from different
strategies? Do given couples exhibit partic- I
ular conflict patterns or favor certain strate- I
gies over others? Do specific clusters of tac- . ~
tics lead to given outcomes in relational con-
flicts ?
The present study can be considered as a
t
first step in a program of research designed to t
examine how friends and intimates gain
compliance in relational conflicts.
47. Harold L. Raush. William A. Barry, Richard K.
Hertel. and Mary Ann Swain, Communication, Conflict
and Marriage (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974),
11