Nonconfrontation Tactics

Nonconfrontation tactics involve efforts to minimize the severity and/or conse­quences of conflict in a nonhostile manner (see Table 2.2). However, people are more aware of the use of nonconfrontation than the communicator realizes.

In addition, people often prefer to hear nonconfrontation tactics because they do not reduce people’s wishes to be seen as competent and likeable. Also, nonconfrontation is the least likely strategy to confine people and burden them

TABLE 2.2 Nonconfrontation Tactics

Minimizes Problem/Responsibility in a Nonhostile Fashion

• Implicit denial—implying that conflict is not a problem or rationalizing that it doesn't exist. ("Yeah she's cute, but she's not my type.”)

• Qualifying statements—explicitly qualifying the extent or nature of conflict. ("Well that was just that once,” "This is a problem, but it's no big deal.”)

• Excuse—offering a reason for problematic behavior. Excuse weak or reasoning faulty. ("I was late because every light was red.”)

Vague or Distracting Comments

• Noncommittal questions—asking unfocused or general questions. ("What do you think?”)

• Abstract remarks—making general remarks about the nature of things. ("Everybody gets irritable sometimes.” "It is important for people to compromise.”)

• Distraction—says something to distract the other person. ("You have a crumb on your shoulder.”)

• Disengagement—nonhostile statement expressing desire not to talk about conflict. ("I'd rather not talk about that now. How about tomorrow?”)

Uses Humor or Teasing

• Friendly jokes—joking not at the expense of the partner. ("That reminds me of a joke: You know how to catch a unique rabbit? Unique up on it.” [Laughter])

• Humor—lighthearted humor, not sarcastic.

Here are two examples of nonconfrontation. The first, short example illus­trates how partners can lighten the intensity of a conversation through distraction (with cajoling and teasing; from AZ Couple # 77):

The next example shows that nonconfrontation can reduce the severity of the issue. The partners collude to broaden the issue so much that no concrete ideas or behaviors emerge. Specifically, the wife begins with a general description of the problem and then she qualifies it, to say that the problems at home are probably cre­ated at work. But the problems at home require her to verbalize, because that allows her to think (turns 5.5-5.6) whereas he tends to be quiet when he thinks (turns 5.7-5.8). Next, she excuses his quietness in abstract terms to explain his usual way to solve problems such that she does not need to participate in his work problems.

Although she articulates her desire to hear whether the “problems” at work actually spill over into the home, she engages in abstraction and excuse for diagnos­ing his quietness. From that point, the woman accepts blame for the problem, again using qualifying and abstract remarks. The man simply agrees, which validates her nonconfrontation tactics and concludes with an abstract solution that lacks any concrete commitment on his part (turn 8.2).

Turn Speaker Message

5.2 F I think sometimes these um, problems that you are referring to,

many times they are work related, where they wouldn’t really involve me.

5.3 But it would I think help me to know that that’s what you are doing, that you are mulling over this problem at work,

5.4 so that I’m not wondering why is he so quiet or is there some­thing bothering him that he is not comfortable talking about.

5.5 But I think when it’s an issue that involves us, or ajoint decision, I tend to want to talk about it more and verbalize about it more,

5.6 whereas I know you know, I kind of think out loud as I am verbalizing.

5.7 Whereas you do your thinking internally,

5.8 and then when you’ve come to some conclusions or some ideas, then you verbalize them.

5.9 And then you talk about them.

5.10 It’s not like you’re making the decisions all by yourself,

5.11 You’re just coming to terms, I think, with what you think we should do when it’s kind of a joint decision.

6.1 M Right.

6.2 Well, I don’t think I make, maybe I do sometimes, I don’t know, but generally I don’t think it’s, after analyzing internally and not being collaborative, I don’t think I make a decision and then um force the decision on you.

7.1 F Oh no, not at all.

7.2 But I think you come to terms with maybe how you think we should lean.

7.3 Whereas before I come to terms with how I think we should go, I verbalize about it.

7.5 And I bounce more ideas off you and sometimes just kind of

rattle on because it helps me to think to just be talking about it.

8.1 M I agree.

9.1 F But I think, and we’ve kind oftalked about this issue, you know

a couple of other times, I think it has to do with just sort of respecting each other’s different ways of problem solving.

9.2 I mean when I know you have something on your mind that you’re quiet about I don’t feel... threatened or less loved.

8.3 I’ve just learned that this is your way of dealing with it.

8.1 M Yeah, I appreciate that.

8.2 You know it’s something that I can try and be more cognizant of and be more open.

This latter segment reveals how avoidance, even polite avoidance, hides problems and disables solutions. Using chronic avoidance can create a dysfunctional system. nonconfrontation can resemble cotton candy—it tastes good but is not something you want to take home for dinner.