Indirect Fighting Tactics
Indirect fighting refers to competitive ways that people attempt to dislodge themselves from the issue at hand without concern for the other person’s goals. It is an indirect and competitive strategy.
By “indirect” here, we refer to both explicit as well as implicit attempts to deny a conflict exists and, if it did, the person certainly does not want to own part of it. Table 2.4 lists message subcategories and tactical behaviors associated with indirect fighting.TABLE 2.4 Indirect Fighting Tactics
Minimizes Seriousness or Personal Responsibility
• Evasive remarks—failing to acknowledge or speaking with a degree of tentativeness. ("I guess that could be a problem.” "How could I know?”)
• Defensiveness—giving reasons for a course of action in a hostile way. ("It's not like I have all the time in the world.”)
• Noncommittal remark—remark that does not deny or affirm existence of conflict. ("Whatever.”)
• Implicit denial—statements that imply denial by providing a rationale for a denial statement, although the denial is not explicit. ("We really don't have a problem with being in a rut. Of course, we are not passionate as we used to be, and we spend our weekends doing the same thing every weekend. But everything is fine.")
Attempts to Change Path of Discussion
• Procedural remark—remark that brings attention to procedural matters in a fashion that overshadows the discussion at hand. ("I can't talk to you when you are like that.")
• Topic avoidance—hostile demand to stop discussing the conflict. ("I don't want to talk about this!”)
• Topic shifts—statements that derail focus of conversation before one can fully express him- or herself. ("I can't tell you about that unless you listen to my other point.”)
Implies Negativity
• Dysphoric affect—expressing of depression in a whiny voice.
(e.g., [Bitter voice] "I always have to pick up the kids.")• Stonewalling—clear withdrawal from the conversation or topic discussion. (Silence followed by partner's attempt to engage in conversation. For example, [silence].... "Well, are you going to say something?")
• Negative attitude—hints or implied subtle threats (indirect) that reveal a negative attitude
• Contempt/Condescension—sings of superiority or arrogance.
• Guilt induction—indirect statements intended to induce guilt in the other party ("I guess nobody appreciates what I do around here.")
From Gustafson, Canary, Farinelli, Johnson, and Eden (2007), DINN II. Unpublished coding manual, Arizona State University.
The following example shows how frustrating indirect fighting can be. The woman complains about her partner’s drinking and driving. However, he will have none of the conversation and resorts mostly to using the strategic subcategory of Minimizes Seriousness or Personal Responsibility. Also, we see his tactical use of evasion and defensiveness. This portion takes only one minute.
| Turn | Speaker | Message | |
| 175 | F | [I do not like] your drinking habits. | |
| 176 | M | I don’t have any drinking habits. | |
| 177 | F | Getting into the car irresponsibly with people that drink not only is that selfish... stop it... Not only is it selfish to be like that because you’re hurtin’ me and everybody else that’s close to you if something happens to you. It’s stupid! And it’s illegal for you... | |
| 178 | M | No, because listen... | |
| 179 | F | ’Cause listen... | |
| 180 | M | You say, if I’m over a friend’s house... Well, yeah, we stay and we’ll have a beer. But it’s different? | |
| 181 | F | I’m not drivin’. I’m not puttin’ anybody’s life in danger! | |
| 182 | M | But you say, “Let’s have a beer” and I have one beer. One beer does nothing to me. | |
| 183 | F | Yeah, but then you go... | |
| 184 | M | So, that’s not putting your life in danger. | |
| 185 | F | Then you wanna go someplace else and have another beer with somebody else. | |
| 186 | M | Yeah, and what’s wrong with that? | |
| 187 | F | And therefore, it’s two! | |
| 188 | M | It doesn’t make any sense. | |
| 189 | F | Yeah, because you’re addin’ on. | |
| 190 | M | No, I’m not, because I’ve sat down at home or anywhere else and had one beer. That’s it. | |
| 191 | F | Yeah, but what I’m saying is that... | |
These two lovebirds continue this pattern for another 20 minutes! Moreover, these people are so keen on maintaining this attack—defend pattern that they often do not make sense. For example, the man argues that if he has a drink at one house and then goes somewhere else to drink, the effects of alcohol do not occur. Another feature of this conversation concerns how they do not listen to each other. The interruption in turns 178—9 is revealing (“No, because listen...” “’Cause, listen....”) because it shows they are not listening to each other. Such examples of interaction help us make sense of the scrambled mess of conflict.
Conclusion 2.3: Strategies are executed in tactics such that one person’s tactics are followed by the other person.
Suggestion 2.3: Avoid the demand—withdrawpattern, either as the person demanding change or the person defending against change.