Plessis, Karin du., & Clarke, Dave (2008).

Couples’ helpful, unhelpful and ideal conflict resolution strategies: secure

and insecure attachment differences and similarities. Interpersona 2(1), 65-88.

Couples’ Helpful, Unhelpful and Ideal Conflict Resolution

Strategies: Secure and Insecure Attachment
Differences and Similarities

1
Karin du Plessis and Dave Clarke
Massey University, New Zealand

Abstract

Twenty two heterosexual couples living in New Zealand participated in this study regarding
helpful, unhelpful and idealized conflict resolution strategies. Thematic analysis was used to
extract key themes, and these were categorized by whether individuals were securely or
insecurely attached to their partners. Both secure and insecure individuals identified similar
helpful conflict strategies, including turn-taking, listening and remaining calm. Differences
emerged between secure and insecure individuals with regards to unhelpful strategies, with
insecure individuals’ descriptions taking on an overall negative slant, whilst secure
individuals either did not use unhelpful strategies or have learned more helpful strategies
over time. Similar ideal conflict strategies emerged for both secure and insecure individuals;
however, secure individuals’ descriptions were much more closely matched to the helpful
strategies they use in their own relationships.

Keywords: secure attachment; insecure attachment; conflict resolution

Introduction

This paper reports on the qualitative component of a larger study (e.g., Du Plessis, Clarke, &

Woolley, 2007) that was conducted with 22 couples in New Zealand. It focused on obtaining

participants’ perspectives on the conflict resolution strategies they use in their long-term

relationships, and makes a distinction between secure and insecure attachment styles to

identify differences between these groups. Following a brief review of adult attachment

literature and conflict strategies, the study is introduced and its findings discussed.

Author note: This research was based on the first author’s doctoral dissertation at Massey University,
New Zealand in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a doctoral degree - made possible by a
Massey Doctoral Scholarship. Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Dave Clarke, Department
of Psychology, Massey University, Private Bag 102 904, NSMSC, Auckland, New Zealand; e-mail:
[email protected]
66 Interpersona 1 (2) – December 2007

Attachment

The study of adult attachment grew from Bowlby (e.g., 1979; 1988) and Ainsworth’s

research (e.g., Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) which focused on the attachment

system of infants and their primary caregivers. Over the last two decades the attention of

attachment research has shifted to the application of attachment theory to adult intimate

relationships. Similar to the infant attachment bond, adult attachment is characterized by

four defining normative processes including proximity maintenance, separation distress,

and viewing the attachment figure as safe haven and secure base (Collins & Feeney, 2004).

Research has indicated that adults with a secure attachment style describe higher levels of

trust, intimacy, satisfaction and commitment in relationships, as opposed to adults with an

avoidant attachment style who describe lower levels of these features, and who exacerbate

relational threats (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990; Mikulincer, Gillath, & Shaver, 2002; Simpson,

Rholes, & Phillips, 1996). In another study it was found that husbands and wives with secure

attachment styles were less rejecting and more supportive of their partners than their

insecurely attached counterparts (Gao, Crowell, Treboux, & Waters, 1997).

Conflict

When conflict arises it can threaten the very heart of the relationship. From an

attachment perspective conflict creates a dilemma: the person, who is generally sought out

when we are distressed, now becomes a source of threat. It is precisely because intimate

relationships are characterized by a shared history and future, as well as strong emotional

investments, that solving conflicts in the intimate setting seem to matter so much to couples

(Peterson, 1983). Conflict is believed to be essentially neither positive nor negative (Sillars,

Canary, & Tafoya, 2003), but rather a foreseeable outcome of the natural process of growth

and change. Hample (2003) suggests that face-to-face arguments can have a variety of

functions: as a means to obtain one’s goals; establish dominance over the other person;

display and define personal identity; and as a recreational activity. Marital conflicts are

defined by Bradbury, Rogge, and Lawrence (2001) as “social interactions in which spouses
du Plessis & Clarke: Couples’ Helpful, Unhelpful and Ideal Conflict Resolution Strategies 67

hold incompatible goals” (p.59). Beach (2001) however notes that one should view opposing

goals as potential conflicts, rather than actual conflicts, due to the fact that couples often

find means to interact cooperatively when faced with incompatible goals and interests.

Conflict resolution strategies are interpersonal behaviours used in the context of a

relationship to resolve disagreements (Marchand, 2004). Effective conflict resolution in

couples occurs when each individual collaborates in creating a solution that meets both

partners’ needs, and conflict resolution experts concur that a key building block to effective

conflict resolution is a willingness to engage in mutual collaboration (e.g., Crum; Fisher,

Ury, & Patton, 1991). Generally, two fundamental categories for conflict styles are

distinguished and include conflict strategies that are integrative (those that work toward the

other person and advances relational goals) and those that are distributive (those that work

in opposition to the other person because people are focused on reaching their own goals

with no consideration for their partner’s goals) (Sillars, Coletti, Parry, & Rogers, 1982).

Helpful conflict strategies

The literature indicates that couples who frequently use a positive problem solving

style (e.g., compromise and negotiation), and infrequently use withdrawal and conflict

engagement, are more satisfied with their relationships (Kurdek, 1994). Pistole and Arricale

(2003) found that securely attached people report less fighting and more effective arguing,

whereas preoccupied individuals view conflict as an attachment threat and focus on re-

establishing togetherness, which might in turn hamper their problem solving ability. These

researchers have also found that securely attached individuals reported less conflict

avoidance than those with dismissing attachment styles (Pistole & Arricale, 2003). Shi (2003)

furthermore reported that secure individuals displayed more positive behaviour and higher

relationship satisfaction than individuals who scored higher on preoccupied and avoidant

attachment dimensions. Creasey (2002) suggests that although secure couples would

occasionally use negative behaviours during conflict, their liberal use of positive behaviours

enhances the positive emotional content of their discussions.

68 Interpersona 1 (2) – December 2007

Unhelpful conflict strategies

Attachment styles can become apparent in conflict situations. For example, research

has found that men with insecure attachment styles display more negative affect and engage

in conflict more frequently, than their securely attached counterparts (e.g., Cohn, Silver,

Cowan, Cowan, & Pearson, 1992; Cowan, Cohn, Cowan, & Pearson, 1996; George, Kaplan, &

Main, 1996). The literature also identifies the demand-withdraw pattern as unhelpful when

trying to solve conflict (Kurdek, 1995). In this demand-withdraw pattern women are

generally the demanding party, whereas men tend to withdraw in response (Kurdek, 1995).

The demand-withdraw pattern is said to account for more variance in relationship

satisfaction than any other conflict resolution style and research suggests that it reflects the

intensity and the amount of intimacy that people need in a relationship, with women

generally desiring more intimacy, and men desiring greater separateness (e.g., Christensen,

1987; Jacobson, 1989). Conflict behaviour that is confronting (especially a negative start-up)

has also been linked to unsatisfactory relationships (e.g., Gottman, Coan, Carrere, &

Swanson, 1998; Kurdek, 1994). Negative conflict behaviours such as complaining,

criticizing, contempt, defensiveness and stonewalling (withdrawal) have also been identified

as harmful to relationship satisfaction (Gottman, 1994).

Ideal relationships and conflict strategies

Previous research has shown that ideal partner standards are based around three

dimensions: warmth/trustworthiness, vitality/attractiveness, and status/resources (Fletcher,

Simpson, Thomas, & Giles, 1999). Ideal relationships have been found to be based on two

dimensions of intimacy/loyalty and passion (Fletcher at al., 1999). More recent research

(Fletcher, Tither, O’Loughlin, Friesen, & Overall, 2004) indicates that individuals in long-

term relationships would value the “warm and homely person as opposed to the cold and

attractive person” (p.670). Individuals who view their current relationships and partners as

closely matching their ideal relationships and partners, have also been found to be more
du Plessis & Clarke: Couples’ Helpful, Unhelpful and Ideal Conflict Resolution Strategies 69

satisfied with their relationships (Fletcher et al.,1999). Securely attached couples’

relationships have been found to be characterized by greater congruence between their

actual and ideal relationships (Mickulincer & Erev, 1991). Levine (1995) theorized that the

discrepancy between ideal and actual love is a natural function of any long-term

relationship, and it requires the individual to constantly manage this “gap” by using a range

of defenses (e.g., idealization, denial, and rationalization) which in turn might enhance

relationship well-being. More recently Caughlin (2003) also noted with regards to ideal

communication in family relationships, that unmet ideals (discrepancies between ideals and

perceptions of communication behaviour) are associated with relationship dissatisfaction.

Proposed themes

The purpose of this study was to focus on perceived helpful, unhelpful and idealized

conflict strategies in couple relationships and to provide insight and understanding of

subjective meanings. Based on a thorough reading of the relevant literature (summarized

above) the researcher expected the following themes to be identified.

Secure and insecure partnerships. Firstly, secure attachment will include proximity

maintenance, separation distress, and viewing each other as a safe haven and a secure base.

This will be expected to come forth through descriptions of having high levels of trust,

intimacy, satisfaction and commitment, and describing their partners as supportive (as well

as having other characteristics that contribute to intimate, satisfied and committed

relationships). Insecurely attached participants are expected to describe the opposite

characteristics, as well as lower levels of trust, intimacy, commitment and satisfaction in

their relationships.

Helpful conflict strategies. Securely attached participants are expected to use positive

behaviours more frequently, than their insecure counterparts, and possibly have a wider

range of helpful strategies. In general, positive problem solving behaviours such as

compromise and negotiation by both partners are expected to appear as themes.

70 Interpersona 1 (2) – December 2007

Unhelpful conflict strategies. Both the securely and the insecurely attached participants

are expected to identify unhelpful conflict resolution strategies, although the insecure

participants’ strategies might be more negatively slanted, and their conflict might occur

more frequently. Participants are expected to comment on the demand-withdraw pattern,

and additionally strategies such as complaining, criticizing, contempt and defensiveness are

expected to be viewed as unhelpful.

Idealized conflict strategies. Conflict resolution styles which results in greater amounts

of warmth and trustworthiness in the relationship, will be held up as the ideal for long-term

relationships. Greater congruence is expected between securely attached couples’ ideal and

real relationships as well as the manner in which they resolve conflict. Securely attached

couples will report ideal conflict resolution styles close to their own. Insecurely attached

participants are expected to hold more unrealistic ideas of their ideal relationships and how

their ideal couple might solve conflict.

Method

Participants

Twenty-two heterosexual couples living in New Zealand were recruited by means of

advertisements in the local media (i.e., Auckland community newspapers). Couples came to

a testing room at Massey University to complete the questionnaires. The study was approved

by the Massey University Human Ethics Committee. Of the 44 participants (22 couples) the

mean age for the sample was 42 years (SD = 10.27). Participants were required to cohabitate

in a heterosexual relationship of at least 6 month duration, and the mean length of

relationships were 161 months (approximately 13 years; SD = 138.50), with the maximum

being 496 months (approximately 41 years). The majority of the participants were in marital

relationships (77%). Approximately half of the sample had children with their current

partner or from a previous relationship (52%). The majority of the sample was of New

Zealand European descent (75%), with some Maori participants (9%), and other participants
du Plessis & Clarke: Couples’ Helpful, Unhelpful and Ideal Conflict Resolution Strategies 71

totaling 16% (e.g., Polynesian, Australian, German, and Singaporean Chinese). Full time

employed participants totaled 52%, whereas 43% were not employed full time, or fell in

anther category (including retired, full time students, part time workers, unemployed, and

full time homemakers). In terms of frequencies, the majority of the participants (59.2%) were

satisfied with their relationships (slightly satisfied, satisfied or very satisfied), with 25%

mixed (neither dissatisfied, nor satisfied), and 15.8% dissatisfied with their relationships (as

measured by the 3-item Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) (Schumm et al., 1986).

Measures

As part of a larger study participants self-reported their attachment styles to their

relational partners using a relationship attachment scale developed by Le Poire et al. (1997).

It measured partner attachment using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 =

strongly agree). The secure partner attachment subscale (• = .83) (12 items) included items

such as (1) “I believe that my partner is capable of unconditional positive regard”, and (2)

“My partner is always there for me in times of crisis”. The results of the secure attachment

subscale were divided between Secure and Insecure Attachment categories (through median

split of the secure attachment scale (Le Poire et al., 1997).

For the purposes of the results reported here participants also completed four

written qualitative questions. Based on a thorough reading of relevant literature the

questions were developed by the researcher and her supervisors to fulfill the research aim

and answer the research questions, which included obtaining a deeper understanding of

conflict resolution strategies that couples perceive as helpful, unhelpful and ideal. The

questions included:

1) Please describe your relationship with your current romantic partner. Include as

much detail as you can and be sure to include characteristics of your relationship

(e.g., “We have a caring and nurturing relationship”) as well as qualities of your

romantic partner (e.g., “He works long hours”);

72 Interpersona 1 (2) – December 2007

2) In your current relationship are there any ways of sorting out problems and

arguments that work really well? Please give examples and comment;

3) In your relationship with your current partner have you noticed any ways of

sorting out problems and arguments that result in failure to reach a solution to a

problem, or that makes a problem worse? Please give examples and comment; and

4) Imagine your ideal relationship. How would the couple in your ideal relationship

handle conflict?

Analysis

For the purposes of analyzing this data set thematic analysis was used. In line with

Braun and Clarke (2006) thematic analysis was used as an “essentialist or realist method,

which reports experiences, meanings and the reality of participants” (p. 81). Boyatzis (1998)

views thematic analysis as a process that is utilized to encode qualitative data. More

specifically a theme is construed as a pattern found in the qualitative information that

describes and organizes the information (Braun & Clarke, 2006). To this extent thematic

analysis was deemed an appropriate methodology to tease out core themes underlying

participants’ relationships with their intimate partners, as well as the strategies that they use

to resolve (or not resolve) their conflict.

The coding process followed a three-step progression, and involved (a) developing

concepts and categories to organize data into a framework of ideas, (b) comparing data

instances, cases and categories for similarities and differences, and (c) unifying key themes.

Following on from the expected themes taken from the literature, five key themes were

identified for each of the qualitative questions. Excerpts from the written answers are used

to illustrate themes where relevant, and a summary of the key themes can be found in Table

1.
du Plessis & Clarke: Couples’ Helpful, Unhelpful and Ideal Conflict Resolution Strategies 73

Key Themes

Secure and Insecure Partnerships

Clear differences emerged in the manner that secure and insecure individuals view

their romantic partners and relationships. Securely attached individuals described their

partners as caring, loving and committed, and their relationships as being based on open

communication, support and consideration, as well as attraction, affection, trust and

integrity.

“He is warm and caring towards me and thinks of me before himself a lot. I knew when I first

met him that he was the man I wanted in my life. He is a hard worker and we are both working

to common goals, and I am looking forward to our future together” (New Zealand European

female, 42).

In contrast insecurely attached individuals’ relationships are characterized by a lack

of closeness, overly controlling behavior, poor communication, unbalanced give-and-take,

and frequent arguments.

“I feel that I am not respected or ‘cherished’ by her and that I am more of a burden than a

partner to her.” (New Zealand European male, 39).

“… arguments are a daily ‘norm’… When arguing we tend to get off track and become

emotional… I think our main problem is not how we sort out our differences and arguments, but

its just that there are so many – all the time about every little thing.” (Dutch female, 32).

A moment should also be taken to comment on the overall slant of the partner

characteristics, as well as the exceptions to this. The secure participants reported overall a

more positive perspective of their partners, and the reverse was true for the insecure

participants who overall reported a more negative perspective of their partners. However, to
74 Interpersona 1 (2) – December 2007

balance out the pictures that were painted by the previous comments, it should be noted

that individuals in the secure category also had less than flattering comments to make about

their respective partners:

“We are very different in most other respects and do not have many interests in common. This

causes problems between us… She becomes very unhappy when she feels she is not getting enough

of my time. I believe she is quite needy in many ways.” (New Zealand European male, 56).

The same also applied to the insecure group where some participants also balanced

out their overly negatively slanted comments with positive comments:

“We are lovers, best friends and he means more to me than anyone in this world.” (New

Zealand European female, 27).

This information fleshes out the picture of secure and insecure attachment, thus

showing the range of experiences as well as the variation within each categorization.

Helpful conflict strategies

Both secure and insecure individuals were able to identify a number of similar

helpful conflict resolution strategies that they use in their relationships, including calm

discussions, taking turns during discussion, listening and trying to understand the other’s

perspective.

“Listen to what the other person has to say and try to understand why they feel that way without

taking personal objection before making any response.” (New Zealand European female,

41).
du Plessis & Clarke: Couples’ Helpful, Unhelpful and Ideal Conflict Resolution Strategies 75

In addition, the insecurely attached individuals qualified that calm discussions

should take place away from distractions.

“… we have begun meeting for coffee every Tuesday – just to spend some time together with no

children, and often we end up resolving minor stuff through a chat.” (New Zealand European

female, 38).

Furthermore, securely attached individuals noted the importance of timely

discussions, and potentially involving a third party when an impasse is reached. The

insecurely attached individuals also noted the importance of taking responsibility for

behavior, as well as negotiating and compromising during conflict.

Unhelpful conflict strategies

Both secure and insecure participants identified a number of unhelpful strategies,

including withdrawal, attacking and overly emotional behavior, as well as blame and

personal insults.

“Things that make it worse for me is when my partner simply shuts down and stops listening to

me – he just turns off as if I’m unimportant and shortly after leaves the room. That’s what

makes the situation worse.” (Maori female, 41).

A number of participants who are securely attached indicated that they do not fail to

reach resolution to their problems, or have not noticed any strategies that make their

problems worse. In addition, it should be noted that some securely attached participants

have learned to use more constructive strategies over time.

“In our early days I used to get sulky and would withdraw. It didn’t help but we sorted that out

years ago.” (New Zealand European male, 43).

76 Interpersona 1 (2) – December 2007

Although there was overlap between both groups’ unhelpful strategies, insecure

individuals’ unhelpful strategies were overall more negatively slanted. In addition they

described behavioral patterns which exacerbated conflict in the relationship.

“Just asking for a discussion to try and sort out an issue sets it up for failure as [he] instantly

assumes I will be nagging or criticizing and then he is unwilling to even discuss the matter… in

the event that the discussion is put off and off and off I get more and more frustrated and my

behavior deteriorates out of control – verbally.” (New Zealand European female, 38).

Ideal conflict strategies

Both groups reported similar ideal conflict strategies, including a desire for no

conflict in ideal relationships, listening well to obtain deeper understanding and calm, in-

depth discussions. The insecure group indicated the importance of finding mutually

acceptable solutions and resolving conflict before going to bed. In addition the securely

attached group identified a focus on problem solving as ideal. A number of securely attached

individuals also commented that they would be using strategies similar to their own in their

ideal relationship.

“Like us! Conflict is a fact of life but our understanding is we will work things through – we are

committed to our marriage, even if at times we do argue.” (New Zealand European female,

50).
du Plessis & Clarke: Couples’ Helpful, Unhelpful and Ideal Conflict Resolution Strategies 77

Table 1

Summary Table of Key Themes categorized by Secure and Insecure Partner Attachment (N = 44)

Secure partner attachment Insecure partner attachment

Partner characteristics
1. Caring, loving and committed 1. Lack of closeness
relationship
2. Attraction, affection and sex 2. Conflicting perspectives and frequent
arguments
3. Open communication 3. Poor communication
4. Support and consideration 4. Overly controlling behaviour
5. Trust, integrity and honesty 5. Unbalanced give-and-take
Unhelpful conflict resolution strategies
1. No unhelpful conflict resolution 1. Avoidance
strategies
2. Withdrawal 2. Withdrawal
3. Attacking and overly emotional behaviour 3. Attacking and overly emotional behaviour
4. Blame and personal insults 4. Blame and personal insults
5. Timing of argument 5. Focus on ‘winning’ the argument
Helpful conflict resolution strategies
1. Calm discussions 1. Calm discussions away from distractions
2. Timely discussions 2. Taking responsibility for behaviour
3. Taking turns during discussion 3. Taking turns during discussion
4. Listening and trying to understand 4. Listening and trying to understand other’s
other’s perspective perspective
5. Third party involvement 5. Negotiate and compromise
Conflict resolution in ideal relationships
1. No conflict in ideal relationship 1. No conflict in ideal relationship
2. Listening well to obtain deeper 2. Listening well to obtain deeper
understanding understanding
3. Calm and in-depth discussions 3. Calm and in-depth discussions
4. Openness and focus on problem solving 4. Finding mutually acceptable solutions
5. Utilizing strategies similar to own 5. Resolving conflict before going to bed
78 Interpersona 1 (2) – December 2007

Discussion

Secure and Insecure Partnerships

Research has indicated that adults with a secure attachment style describe higher

levels of trust, intimacy, satisfaction and commitment in relationships, as opposed to adults

with an avoidant attachment style who describe lower levels of these features (e.g., Collins &

Feeney, 2004). In another study it was found that husbands and wives with secure

attachment styles were less rejecting and more supportive of their partners than their

insecurely attached counterparts (Gao et al., 1997). These results are echoed in the findings

of the current study, with securely attached participants indicating caring, loving and

affectionate relationships, whilst insecurely attached participants felt that there were

frequent arguments and a lack of closeness in their relationships. In addition to poor

communication between partners, insecurely attached participants commented that either

themselves, or their partners, exhibited some overly controlling behaviour in the

relationships, and there was often an unbalanced give-and-take in the relationship. In

contrast, the securely attached individuals reported open communication in their

relationships, as well as support and consideration for each other. For securely attached

individuals there was also a sense that their relationships were built on trust, integrity and

honesty between the partners.

Helpful Conflict Strategies

Previous research has indicated that securely attached people report less fighting and

more effective arguing, whereas preoccupied individuals view conflict as an attachment

threat and focus on re-establishing togetherness, which might in turn hamper their problem

solving ability (Pistole & Arricale, 2003). These researchers have also found that securely

attached individuals reported less conflict avoidance than those with dismissing attachment

styles (Pistole & Arricale, 2003). Along similar lines, Shi (2003) reported that secure

individuals displayed more positive behaviour and higher relationship satisfaction than
du Plessis & Clarke: Couples’ Helpful, Unhelpful and Ideal Conflict Resolution Strategies 79

individuals who scored higher on preoccupied attachment and avoidant attachment. Both

the secure and the insecure groups were aware of helpful strategies. All of the strategies

described by the participants in this study as ‘helpful’ would fall under the broader heading

of a positive problem solving style. Gross and Guerrero (2002) also found that an integrative

conflict style is generally perceived as the most appropriate and effective style, whereas the

obliging and compromising styles are seen as neutral.

In terms of strategies, both the securely attached and the insecurely attached groups

were able to identify a number of helpful strategies. Both groups identified calm discussions

as helpful, with the insecurely attached group qualifying that the calm discussions should

occur away from distractions. The secure group again mentioned that discussions need to

take place at an appropriate time. The insecure group commented that it was important for

each individual to take responsibility for their own behaviour during the conflict resolution

process. Both groups indicated the importance of taking turns during a discussion, as well

as the importance of listening intently to each other whilst attempting to understand the

other party’s perspective. Some participants in the securely attached group also saw the need

for involving a third party if an impasse is reached. The insecure group indicated the

helpfulness of negotiating and compromising during conflict.

Creasey’s study (2002), of 145 young adult couples involved in romantic

relationships, reiterates some of these findings, and also suggests some additional gender

differences. It was found (Creasey, 2002) that young women, in particular, with secure

attachment styles used more positive behaviour during discussions of conflict, and female

attachment security also predicted the occurrence of joint couple positive behaviours,

whereas male insecurity predicted the frequency of negative behaviours. Creasey furthermore

suggests that although secure couples would occasionally use negative behaviours during

conflict, their liberal use of positive behaviours enhances the positive emotional content of

their discussions, and this is also in line with the current findings.
80 Interpersona 1 (2) – December 2007

Unhelpful Conflict Strategies

Research to date has indicated that couples who manage their conflicts

constructively, experience more relationship satisfaction that their counterparts who utilize

ineffective conflict resolution styles (e.g., Kurdek, 1994). Although some overlap did occur

between unhelpful strategies for the participants in the secure and insecure groups, it can be

noted that a number of participants in the secure category indicated that they had no

unhelpful conflict resolution strategies. In other words, many of these participants felt that

they only had helpful strategies which would no doubt assist them in solving their conflict

constructively.

Research (e.g., Cohn et al., 1992; Cowan et al., 1996; George et al., 1996) has found

that men with insecure attachment styles display more negative emotions and engage in

conflict more frequently, than securely attached men. These researchers also found that in

conflict situations where both partners exhibited insecure attachment styles, interactions

were more strained. Gross and Guerrero (2000) found that the dominating style and

avoiding style were perceived as inappropriate and ineffective when trying to solve conflict.

In the current study the insecurely attached group also indicated avoidance as being an

unhelpful strategy when attempting to solve conflict.

Another gender-specific spousal interaction that has been identified in the literature

on unhelpful conflict resolution strategies is the demand-withdraw pattern (Kurdek, 1995).

In the current study both men and women in the secure and the insecure groups indicated

an awareness that withdrawal was an unhelpful conflict resolution strategy.

Gottman’s more recent model of relational decay (1994) suggests that couples move

toward divorce due to the negative conflict behaviour they display that systematically leads

to negative beliefs about each other. In particular behaviours such as

complaining/criticizing, contempt, defensiveness and stonewalling (withdrawal) have been

identified as corrosive to relationship satisfaction. In this regard, it can be noted that both

the secure and the insecure groups identified attacking and overly emotional behaviour, as
du Plessis & Clarke: Couples’ Helpful, Unhelpful and Ideal Conflict Resolution Strategies 81

well as blame and personal insults as unhelpful strategies during conflict. In addition, the

securely attached individuals reported that the timing of the argument can quite often

hamper effective problem solving. For the insecurely attached individuals a focus on

‘winning’ the argument was also reported to interfere with their conflict resolution abilities.

Although there was some overlap between the securely attached and insecurely

attached groups in terms of what they perceived as unhelpful strategies, there was also an

important point of difference: A number of secure participants indicated that although

being aware of some ineffective conflict resolution strategies, they had also learned

constructive conflict resolution strategies over time. In contrast some of the insecure

participants indicated behavioral patterns that currently exacerbate their problems, or which

cause their conflict to spiral out of control.

Ideal Conflict Strategies

Recent years have seen our cultural obsession with ideal love and ideal relationships

(Evans, 2003) develop into booming enterprises for dating agencies and reality television

programs, as they seek to exploit this phenomenon (Djikic & Oatley, 2004). Participants

were asked to imagine their ideal relationship, and then to imagine how the couple in their

ideal relationship would handle conflict. Firstly, a number of participants in the secure and

insecurely attached groups indicated that in an ideal relationship there would be no conflict,

as both individuals would be in perfect harmony with each other. According to the literature

this does not bode well for their relationships satisfaction, as most couples experience some

degree of conflict. In terms of real and ideal love relationships Coyne (2001) found that the

greater the discrepancies between perceptions of actual and ideal love in the relationship, the

lower the relationship satisfaction. Similarly, greater discrepancies between real and ideal

partners/relationships would also contribute to relationship dissatisfaction (Fletcher,

Simpson, Thomas, & Giles, 1999). The secure group could however be closer to their own

ideal couples, as many indicated that an ideal couple would utilize similar strategies to the

strategies that they themselves use to solve conflict. To this extent Mickulincer and Erev
82 Interpersona 1 (2) – December 2007

(1991) found that securely attached couples’ relationships were characterized by greater

congruence between their actual and ideal relationships. Greater congruence between real

and ideal relationships has also been linked to relationship satisfaction (Fletcher et al.,

1999). Levine (1995) theorized that the discrepancy between ideal and actual love is a natural

function of any long-term relationship, and it requires the individual to constantly manage

this “gap” by using a range of defenses which in turn might either enhance relationship well-

being (possibly the secure group) or destabilize the individual and the relationship (possibly

the insecure group).

In terms of other conflict strategies, both groups indicated that couples in their ideal

relationship would be great listeners, and in that manner they would obtain a deeper

understanding of each other. Calm and in-depth discussions would also solve the problems

in an ideal relationship for both groups. The securely attached group also commented that

openness and a focus on problem solving would be helpful. The insecurely attached group

indicated that finding mutually acceptable solutions would be paramount for their ideal

couple, and then interestingly enough a number of participants indicated the importance of

resolving their conflict amicably before going to bed, maybe reflecting their own need for

having closure. All the conflict strategies noted by the secure and insecure groups emulate

ideals of warmth and trustworthiness. Warmth and trustworthiness in a relational partner is

adaptive from an evolutionary perspective as it increases the likelihood that the relationship

will be maintained long-term (Fletcher et al., 1999). This, according to Fletcher and his

colleagues, is important if one considers the time investment of both partners in the long-

term relationship and potential offspring (parental investment theory) (Fletcher, Tither,

O’Loughlin, Friesen, & Overall, 2004). The discrepancies between perceived and ideal

standards, and also between perceived and ideal conflict resolution styles, allows individuals

to evaluate and make adjustments to their partners/relationships, as well as make causal

attributions about their partners/relationships (Campbell, Simpson, Kashy, & Fletcher,

2001), and as such has implications for the longevity of a relationship (Fletcher et al., 2004).
du Plessis & Clarke: Couples’ Helpful, Unhelpful and Ideal Conflict Resolution Strategies 83

Limitations

Participants were asked to self-report on their conflict behaviours. These are thus subjective

reports of behaviour, and this data is not based on observed behavioral indicators. Partner

attachment representations are not accessible to direct observation, and self-report is one

potential manner of measurement, which has numerous limitations including memory and

recall of attachment behaviour. In addition it should be noted that people possess multiple

attachment schemas which are influenced by the various attachments they form to people in

their lives (e.g., Mikulincer & Arad, 1999; Pierce & Lydon, 2001) and this research project

only addressed current subjective models of attachment to the romantic partner.

Attachment styles and other relationship variables, such as conflict resolution styles are

relatively stable over time (e.g., Crowell, Treboux, & Waters, 2002), but new experiences

could also potentially affect changes. The self-report questionnaire was administered once

only, thus providing a snapshot view of perspectives on partner attachment and real and

ideal conflict behaviour. This did not allow for measurement of changes in these variables

over time or for factors influencing changes longitudinally.

Twenty two heterosexual couples participated in this research project. From a

qualitative perspective, the number of participants allowed for adequate variability to allow

for a thematic analysis of the data (Boyatzis, 1998). However, Boyatzis also identified the

following obstacles to effective thematic analysis, which could potentially have influenced

the results in this study: projection, sampling, mood and style. Projection is viewed as

attributing the researcher’s emotions, qualities, values or conceptualizations onto the

participants, and is particularly problematic to avoid if there is ambiguous material present

(Boyatzis). Future studies could prevent or lessen the potential effect of projection by using

several people to encode the information, thereby establishing consistent judgments and

greater reliability of findings (Boyatzis). Adequate sampling minimizes the number of errors

present in the data, so that the researcher can be sure that he/she is processing information

that is not contaminated by other variables or unknown factors (Boyatzis). For the most part
84 Interpersona 1 (2) – December 2007

the themes that were identified from the qualitative data were consistent with the literature,

thus it can be assumed that adequate sampling of the relevant factors were allowed for.

Lastly, Boyatzis identifies mood and style as an obstacle to effective data analysis, and by this

he implies that one’s mood and cognitive style can influence one’s ability to identify the

themes. It can be noted that the researcher did find the analysis of participants’ attachments

to their partners, as well as some of the stories that went with it more trying than some of

the other questions due to the nature of the answers, including references to physical abuse,

addictions and conflict in the family. However, the researcher did pace herself when

analyzing these themes, and allowed adequate debriefing with supervisors to lessen the

emotional impact of the content.

Conclusion

In summary, calm discussions, turn taking, listening, negotiating and compromising

were all touted as helpful strategies during conflict resolution, whereas attacking, overly

emotional behaviour, blame, personal insults and withdrawal were seen as unhelpful. In

ideal relationships many couples believed there would be no conflict. In addition ideal

conflict resolution strategies included intent listening to obtain a deep understanding, as

well as calm and in-depth discussions. This project set out to obtain a more in-depth

perspective of helpful, unhelpful and ideal conflict strategies in couples, and a number of

important differences and similarities were noted between securely attached and insecurely

attached groups. Although relevant to the general population (in particular New Zealand)

these findings are also particularly relevant to couple therapists and clinicians with regards

to which strategies are particularly helpful/unhelpful to couples. Additional qualitative

studies comparing couples in therapy with happy couples would shed more light as to

whether these differences become more pronounced, in comparison to this study. Future

studies could also quantify these differences with quantitative methodologies. As indicated

by some participants they have noticed that their conflict strategies have changed over time.
du Plessis & Clarke: Couples’ Helpful, Unhelpful and Ideal Conflict Resolution Strategies 85

Longitudinal research could examine the processes involved with these changes in conflict

strategies over time.

References

Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment: A

psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Beach, S.R.H. (2001). Expanding the study of dyadic conflict: The potential role of self-

evaluation maintenance processes. In A. Booth, A.C. Crouter, & M. Clements (Eds.),

Couples in conflict, (pp. 83-94). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bradbury, T.N., Rogge, R., & Lawrence, E. (2001). Reconsidering the role of conflict in

marriage. In A. Booth, A.C. Crouter, & M. Clements (Eds.), Couples in conflict, (pp. 59-

81). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in

Psychology, 3, 77-101.

Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Routledge.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. London: Routledge.

Boyatzis, R.E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code

development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Caughlin, J.P. (2003). Family communication standards: What counts as excellent family

communication and how are such standards associated with family satisfaction.

Human Communication Research, 29, 5-40.

Christensen, A. (1987). Detection of conflict patterns in couples. In K. Hahlweg, & M.J.

Goldstein, (Eds.), Understanding major mental disorder: The contribution of family interaction

research (pp. 250-265). New York: Family Process.

Campbell, L., Simpson, J.A., Kashey, D.A., & Fletcher, G.J.O. (2001). Ideal standards, the self,

and flexibility of ideals in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

27, 447-462.
86 Interpersona 1 (2) – December 2007

Cohn, D., Silver, D., Cowan, C., Cowan, P., & Pearson, J. (1992). Working models of

childhood attachment and couple relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 13, 432-449.

Collins, N.L., & Feeney, B.C. (2004). An attachment theory perspective on closeness and

intimacy. In D.J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 163 –

187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Collins, N.L., & Read, S.J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship

quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.

Cowan, P., Cohn, D., Cowan, C., & Pearson, J. (1996). Parents’ attachment histories and

children’s externalizing and internalizing behaviours: Exploring family systems models

of linkage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 53-63.

Coyne, M. (2001). Differences in real and ideal love in adult children of divorce. Dissertation

Abstracts International, 62, 2532.

Creasy, G. (2002). Associations between working models of attachment and conflict

management behaviour in romantic couples. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 49, 365-

375.

Crowell, J.A., Treboux, D., & Waters, E. (2002). Stability of attachment representations: The

transition to marriage. Developmental Psychology, 38, 467-479.

Djikic, M., & Oatley, K. (2004). Love and personal relationships: Navigating on the border

between the ideal and the real. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 34, 198-209.

Du Plessis, K., Clarke, D., & Woolley, C.C. (2007). Secure attachment conceptualizations:

The influence of general and specific relational models on conflict beliefs and conflict

resolution styles. Interpersona, 1(1). Retrieved June 11, 2008, from

http://www.interpersona.org

Evans, M. (2003). Love: An unromantic discussion. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

nd
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (2

ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Fletcher, G.J.O., Simpson, J.A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate

relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72-89.

du Plessis & Clarke: Couples’ Helpful, Unhelpful and Ideal Conflict Resolution Strategies 87

Fletcher, G.J.O., Tither, J.M., O’Loughlin, C., Friesen, M., & Overall, N. (2004). Warm and

homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 659-672.

Gao, Y., Crowell, J., Treboux, D., & Waters, E. (1997). Is it easier for a secure person to use

and serve as a secure base? Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for

Research in Child Development, Washington, DC.

rd
George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1996). Adult Attachment Interview, (3 ed.). Unpublished

manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley.

Gottman, J.M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital

outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gottman, J.M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and

stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 5-22.

Gross, M.A., & Guerrero, L. K., (2000). Managing conflict appropriately and effectively: An

application of the competence model to Rahim's organizational conflict styles.

International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 200-226.

Hampel, D. (2003). Arguing skill. In J.O. Greene & B.R. Burleson (Eds). Handbook of

communication and social interaction skill (pp. 439-470). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jacobson, N.S. (1989). The politics of intimacy. Behaviour Therapist, 12, 29-32.

Kurdek, L.A. (1994). Conflict resolution styles in gay, lesbian, heterosexual nonparent, and

heterosexual parent couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 705-722.

Kurdek, L.A. (1995). Predicting change in marital satisfaction from husbands’ and wives’

conflict resolution styles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 153-164.

Le Poire, B.A., Haynes, J., Driscoll, J., Driver, B.N., Wheelis, T.F., Hyde, M.K., et al. (1997).

Attachment as a function of parental and partner approach-avoidance tendencies.

Human Communication Research, 23, 413-441.

Levine, S.B. (1995). On love. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 21, 183-191.

Levinger, G. (1966). Sources of marital dissatisfaction among applicants for divorce. Journal

of Orthopsychiatry, 36, 803-807.

88 Interpersona 1 (2) – December 2007

Marchand, J.F. (2004). Husbands’ and wives’ marital quality: The role of adult attachment

orientations, depressive symptoms, and conflict resolution behaviours. Attachment and

Human Development, 6, 99-112.

Mikulincer, M., & Erev, I. (1991). Attachment style and the structure of romantic love. British

Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 273-291.

Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Shaver, P.R. (2002). Activation of the attachment system in
adulthood: Threat-related primes increase the accessibility of mental representations
of attachment figures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 881-895.
Peterson, D.R. (1983). Conflict. In H.H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J.H. Harvey, T.L

Huston, G. Levinger, et al., (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 360-396). San Francisco, CA:

Freeman.

Pistole, M.C. & Arricale, F. (2003). Understanding attachment: Beliefs about conflict. Journal

of Counseling and Development, 81, 318-329.

Schumm, W.R., Paff-Bergen, L.A., Hatch, R.C., Obiorah, F.C., Copeland, J.M., Meens, L.D., et

al. (1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction

Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 381-387.

Sillars, A.L., Canary, D.J., & Tafoya, M. (2003). Communication, conflict, and the quality of

family relationships. In A. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 413-

446). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sillars, A.L., Coletti, S.F., Parry, D., & Rogers, M.A. (1982). Coding verbal conflicts:

Nonverbal and perceptual correlates of the “avoidance-distributive-integrative”

distinction. Human Communications Research, 9, 83-95.

Simpson, J.A., Rholes, S.W., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An
attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 899-914.
Shi, L. (2003). The association between adult attachment styles and conflict resolution in

romantic relationships. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 143-157.

Received April 17, 2008

Revision received June 12, 2008
Accepted June 30, 2008