The Awareness Wheel

zxINTRAPERSONAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Hugh Pates

With the development of psychology has come a recognition of the conflicting needs, values, and attitudes inside many people. These intrapersonal conflicts are now recognized as a major source of personal problems; the person frequently becomes antagonistic toward himself or herself and then transfers, or projects, this turmoil and discontent to associates and to relationships or systems of which he or she is a part.

An individual can discover these inner conflicts by identifying the ÒshouldsÓ that he or she has internalized. Parental criticism, the implication that one will not be loved or accepted if one does not do as he or she Òshould,Ó and the anger that results from this situation are crucial issues in personal development. Inability to measure up to oneÕs internalized standards creates feelings of guilt and a lack of personal acceptance. This lecturette focuses on the recognition of oneÕs own strengths and the acceptance of oneÕs own limitationsÑin effect, a process of coming to terms with oneself.

One must accept oneself before one can truly accept, or expect to be accepted by other people. A major step in achieving this is through the development of a sense of personal power.

DEVELOPING A PERSONAL POWER BASE

The first step in self-acceptance is the recognition of those ÒshouldsÓ that are unnecessary or unrealistic, as well as a realization that people punish themselves for failing to live up to their own standards. When a person feels that he or she has not been, or done, what was expected, this becomes translated into ÒI donÕt deserve to feel happy (energetic, rested, content, etc.)Ó and, thus the person may experience depression, insomnia, irritation, restlessness, or lack of energy. As long as the inner conflict continues, the guilt, punishment, and discontent will occur. Figure 1 illustrates this cycle.

In childhood, the fourth stage of the cycle occurred when the punishment had Òpaid oneÕs debtÓ and oneÕs sense of ÒgoodnessÓ was restored (until the next infraction). In self-punishment, however, there is no sense of relief. The personÕs sense of strength and purpose becomes diminished and he or she begins to feel deserving of all the bad things that happenÑpartially as a result of his or her own weakness. The person is depressed because he or she is Òbad;Ó only when he or she is ÒgoodÓ will this person be allowed to be happy or successful.

Figure 1. Personal Conflict Cycle (Punishment Cycle)

Breaking the Cycle

The first step in breaking the cycle is to identify the ÒshouldsÓ and ÒshouldnÕtsÓ and where they come from. Often the first discovery is that these come from outside oneself, that they are, in fact, the values or rules of oneÕs parents or of a particular influence from oneÕs childhood. These edicts are often Òswallowed wholeÓ without being examined; they are called ÒintrojectedÓ values.

The second step is to ask ÒIs this ÔshouldÕ really something that I want to do? What do I want to do?Ó Identification of oneÕs own needs, responses, and purposes helps to restore personal power. It is important in this phase to distinguish between what one wishes to do and what one sincerely wants to do. Wishing leads to daydreaming and continued conflict. Authentic wanting leads directly to a specific behavior.

One way to distinguish between wishes and wants, or actual intentions, is to test the personÕs commitment to action. For example, consider the following dialogue:

A: ÒI want to get together with you to discuss it.Ó

B: ÒHow about tomorrow?Ó

A: ÒNo, tomorrowÕs not good; IÕm pretty busy.Ó

B: ÒWell, how about next week?Ó

A: ÒOh, next week is worse.

B: ÒO.K., letÕs set a date for two weeks from now.

A: ÒI never plan that far ahead, but I do want to talk to you.

At this point, person B probably doubts AÕs intent. Although this example is simple, the same test is true for dieting, working overtime, getting in shape, taking a trip, or whatever.

The third step, then, is to ask ÒWhat is keeping me from doing it?Ó People usually do what they want to do, so if a behavior is contrary to a stated want, the next question may be ÒDo you want to give that up or do you want to accept yourself as you are?Ó The last question is ÒWhat changes will you make from the way you now behave to the way you want to behave?Ó A stated want is probably more functional as a wish if the date of its implementation is repeatedly delayed. This can be all right if the person can accept that realization, enjoy the wish, and not feel guilty about not implementing it.

Implementation of a plan, on the other hand, resolves the conflicts about avoiding it andÑassuming that the results of the action are not disastrousÑreinforces the person. He or she takes charge and may even feel a surge of power.

So the ultimate goal of breaking the conflict cycle is to create a sense of personal power, of being able to analyze, choose, and act on oneÕs own challenges. This power base increases the chance that the person will not punish himself or herself unnecessarily in the future.

ASSUMING RESPONSIBILITY

It is important to realize that people generally give themselves permission to do what they really want to do. Some situations or people may make it easier to give oneself permission; for example, being more open with someone one knows well, or having ice cream with a group of friends who also are ordering ice cream. However, ultimately it is the individual who allows the action or denies the freedom.

The most crucial step in developing self-acceptance is to assume responsibility for oneself. A person who assumes responsibility in any situation probably feels strong; in the case of personal responsibilities the act contributes to the feeling of strength. Like physical exercise, the more one does it, the easier it seems.

A person refusing to grant himself or herself permission to do something frequently says, ÒI canÕt do it.Ó The question then is ÒWho is keeping you from doing it?ÓÑnot Òwhat,Ó but Òwho.Ó The answer usually is that the person really means ÒI donÕt want to do that.Ó By admitting this, the person accepts the responsibility for the decision. At the same time, by realizing that he or she has made a choice, the person assumes responsibility for whatever action is chosen.

Another answer that may be used to forestall a decision or action is ÒI donÕt know.Ó The next question here is ÒWhat do you want to do with your lack of knowledge?Ó (Do you want to explore possibilities or alternatives? Do you want me to ask you questions?) If the answer repeatedly is ÒI donÕt know,Ó the person clearly is avoiding responsibility. The same is true of ÒIÕm confused.Ó If this is said repeatedly, or after a clear explanation, the person probably chooses to be confused. Some progress can be made here if the person is willing to take responsibility at least for the decision to remain confused in order to avoid further responsibility.

A third tactic used to avoid responsibility is to ask a question when one really has a statement to make. An example is when one says ÒWhere do you want to go next weekend?Ó when one actually means ÒI want to go to the races next weekend.Ó The intrapersonal conflict here is between the desire and the failure to assume responsibility for it. In addition, interpersonal conflict is likely to result because one appears to be offering an option when that really is not the case at all.

An indication that a person is going to assume responsibility is the phase ÒI am going toÊ.Ê.Ê.Ê.Ó Likewise, it is likely that choice is exercised when a person says ÒI wonÕtÓ or ÒI do not want.ÕÕ

BEHAVIOR IS BELIEVABLE

The proof of, and most critical step in, any conflict resolution is behavior. The sequence is to be aware, for oneself, of what one wants to do and gives oneself permission to do (or not do); to assume responsibility for the decision or choice; to assume responsibility for and do the action. The behavior then becomes part of oneself, and the experience strengthens oneÕs base of personal power. In this way, the person is more able to avoid the personal conflict cycle and to make decisions based on personal evaluation, in effect, to manage his or her own life.

zxTHE SUPPORT MODEL

Juliann Spoth, Barry H. Morris, and Toni C. Denton

Support probably is most often thought of as an effort on the part of one person to comfort, express approval of, provide encouragement to, or help Òshoulder the burdensÓ of another person. However support also can be sought or created by an individual in an effort to tolerate difficult or uncomfortable circumstances in a group setting. Creating self-support results in the freedom to be oneself and, hence, the strength to act. The freedom and strength that flow from support result in personal power for the individual, allowing him or her to maintain a sense of balance in the face of unsettling situations.

Supporting oneself is one way of resisting something potentially harmful in the environment. Such resistance protects self-esteem, which is critical for contact. Satir (1976) points out that Òanything that injures self-esteem reduces the opportunity to make good contact.Ó This does not imply that all parties involved must feel completely comfortable to make contact with one another, but rather that a minimal degree of comfort must be experienced by each in order for contact to be possible.

Seeking self-support results not only in individual gains but also in benefits for the group. An individual who feels comfortable in a group is sufficiently freed from personal concerns to be able to concentrate on the group and to act as a catalyst, aiding the groupÕs development.

Thus, support is both an act and a consequence of that act and, as such, must be viewed as a dynamic process.

THE SUPPORT MODEL: AN OVERVIEW

In the process of developing support within a group, a person makes two major choices: the content of support and the primary source of that support. In the case of content, the choice is between cognitive or ÒheadÓ information and physioemotional or ÒgutÓ information. With regard to source, the choice is between oneself (assuming a private, reflective posture) and other group members (assuming a sharing, active posture). The combination of these two choices results in four types of support that can be actively developed (see Figure 1).

nReflective-physioemotional support, in which content is focused on feelings or physical cues and the contact remains with oneself (Quadrant I);

Figure 1. The Support Model

nReflective-cognitive support, in which the focus is on intellectual content and the contact is with oneself (Quadrant II);

nActive-cognitive support, in which the focus is on intellectual content and the contact is with others (Quadrant III); and

nActive-physioemotional support, in which content is focused on feelings or bodily cues and the contact is with others (Quadrant IV).

This model helps group members to become aware of the ways in which they presently are supporting themselves and it also offers them alternatives. It is important to note, however, that each choice creates both connection and disconnection (with the group or with oneself). For example, someone who is focusing on his or her feelings is not focusing on other possible sources of support, such as cognitive information or another group memberÕs view of reality.

In addition, the various options are not without constraints; internal and external pressures favor some choices over others. One major internal constraint is a personÕs preferred style with regard to obtaining support. All of us carry our pasts with us, and the past shapes the ways in which we support ourselves. For example, a woman who, as a child, was punished by her family for expressing feelings is unlikely to seek support by sharing feelings with others in the group.

Similarly, because individuals in a group are not isolated, external pressures are brought to bear. Regardless of the personal support styles represented in the group, certain support behaviors may be rewarded or punished depending on the culture and developmental phase of the group. The group culture is affected by many factors, such as the personal profiles of members and leaders, the norms that develop, and the main purpose or focus of the group. In a task group, for instance, norms against sharing personal feelings often develop. On the other hand, in a T-group, the members are likely to be discouraged from sharing intellectual explanations of behavior in favor of focusing on feelings.

The groupÕs phase of development also can affect individual choices regarding support. For instance, in the early life of a group, when allies and enemies are unknown and rules about the type and intensity of information that can be shared publicly are unclear, all information tends to remain private. Even when an individual does share information in an attempt to gain support, the content of that information is likely to be cognitive rather than emotionally charged.

Because the choice of support is shaped by so many constraints, it is important that individual group members expand their options by learning to develop more than one type of support.

Reflective-Physioemotional Support

Quadrant I represents a set of choices that involve seeking support by turning attention inward and acknowledging oneÕs present physical and emotional state. With this approach, an individual notes internal signals of discomfort and acknowledges them, thereby alleviating the discomfort and supporting himself or herself in a difficult situation. Examples of behaviors that are characteristic of Quadrant I include the following:

nAttending to personal indications of stress;

nExamining information derived from the senses;

nNoticing body posture; and

nSlowing down breathing or movement.

For example, a group member may become aware that she is tapping the floor with her foot in an agitated manner. She acknowledges this behavior as a cue that something is bothering her, reflects on how she is feeling, and becomes aware that she is experiencing anxiety. She then decides to decrease her anxiety by concentrating on breathing slowly. Her decision allows her to relax, is immediately supportive, and frees her to take other actions. Once she knows her personal reactions, she can better decide whether to engage the group and how to engage it.

However, as is the case with all these approaches to developing support, negative as well as positive consequences exist. Concentrating on oneÕs own physioemotional reactions diminishes the individualÕs awareness of other people and the group as a whole.

Reflective-Cognitive Support

The choices represented by Quadrant II involve supporting oneself through cognitive means. Through this reflective activity, an individual gains support by making sense of his or her own experience, anotherÕs experience, or a group event. Comfort and personal power are achieved by associating events, identifying patterns, comparing, and analyzing. For example, a situation might arise in which two group members make strong negative statements about a fellow member who is less influential than they. The recipient of these comments responds in his own defense, apparently without affecting their perceptions and feelings about him. In this instance he could support himself by turning inward and using his cognitive function. He could, for instance, speculate that not all group members feel negatively toward him and that the two who made the comments acted on the basis of subjective perceptions. He might further support himself by remembering that he knows many people outside the group who love the qualities that were just criticized. Then he can actively reconnect with the group or simply maintain a stance as an observer. In either case, he can act from a position of support. It is important to note that by choosing this approach, he eliminates the possibility of deriving support from another potential source, those group members who also may feel that the comments were not justified.

Other types of affirming thoughts characteristic of Quadrant II are as follows:

nRecognizing that other group members may be uncomfortable, too;

nAcknowledging that no single group member is responsible for filling in silences; and

nRemembering that members may be transferring their own emotions or reactions from past personal experiences to individuals in the current group.

Active-Cognitive Support

Quadrant III reflects a set of behaviors that consist of extending oneÕs intellect toward the group by sharing and explaining information of a cognitive rather than a physioemotional nature. Active-cognitive support often is stimulated by an emotional incident in the group. A member who is uncomfortable with intense emotional expression in response to such an incident is prompted to support himself or herself by explaining what has occurred. The active stance of sharing an explanation offers an opportunity to be influential or to feel included. With this approach, an individual can meet his or her needs in the group by using the group rather than the self as the medium of expression. A major consequence of this choice is that connection with oneself is minimized.

This manner of developing support includes, but is not limited to the following behaviors:

nSharing thoughts, analyses, and explanations;

nAsking questions about group events; and

nOffering theories about group events or membersÕ behaviors.

Active-Physioemotional Support

As is the case with Quadrant III, Quadrant IV reflects the choice of seeking support in an active mode in which contact with the group is maximized and contact with the self is minimized. However, with the type of support represented by Quadrant IV, the emphasis is on physioemotional rather than cognitive reactions. These reactions can be in response to the group, another person inside or outside the group, or oneself.

Behaviors that are characteristic of active-physioemotional support include the following:

nMaking eye contact with others in the group;

nHugging another group member; and

nExpressing anger, frustration, joy, and so forth.

For example, a group member may feel angry with several other members because they have chosen to remain silent during an important group discussion. Choosing to express this anger enables her to reveal rather than sublimate her personal feelings and thereby support her need to be open with the group. By selecting this option, she also directly addresses the issue of silence, which may be negatively affecting the functioning of the entire group. This action may generate a dialogue that will lead to positive growth for the silent members and for the group as well. On the other hand, she not only takes the risks incurred with this kind of confrontation but also sacrifices cognitive data that she might have found useful in handling the situation.