Journal of Adult Development, Vol. 13, No.

1, March 2006 (Ó 2006)

DOI: 10.1007/s10804-006-9006-z

Brief Report: Promoting Postformal Thinking on the Job: A

Protocol for Interpersonal Conflict Resolution Training

Patricia Flynn Weitzman1,3,4 and Eben A. Weitzman2

In this paper, we discuss the relevance of training in the constructive resolution of interper-
sonal conflicts that occur at work. Research indicates that such conflicts may be a source of
stress for adults, particularly young adults who have just entered the workforce. We present a
training protocol in constructive conflict resolution that has been adapted for application to
work-related conflicts. Most conflict resolution training protocols for use in the workplace
focus on resolving company-wide problems. We do not know of any that focus on individual
conflicts between employees, while emphasizing skills that may offer some benefits for the
development of postformal thinking. Postformal thinking has been postulated as relevant to
becoming an expert in one’s chosen profession. We present this protocol to stimulate ideas on
how to further develop and refine training efforts for working adults in conflict resolution.

KEY WORDS: conflict resolution; postformal thinking; workplace training.

INTRODUCTION cognition, needs of the self, of others, and of the

The life demands of adulthood, which include
the demands of work, are key motivating forces in
development (Sinnott, 1994). Research has shown
that younger and middle-aged adults experience sig-
nificant interpersonal challenges at work (Demick &
Miller, 1993; Levinson, 1996; Weitzman, 2001). These
challenges can serve as a stimulus for complex self-
referential postformal Piagetian thought (Sinnott &
Johnson, 1997). In other words, as unpleasant as
these conflicts may be, they can provide adults with
the opportunity to think postformally, i.e. consider
and integrate the many realities of emotion,
1
Department of Psychiatry, Brigham & Women’s Hospital/
Harvard Medical School, 350 Longwood Avenue, Suite 201,
Boston, MA 02115, USA.
2
Graduate Programs in Dispute Resolution, University of Massa-
chusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125, USA.
3
22 Kensington Ave, Newton, MA 02465, USA.
4
Correspondence should be directed to Patricia Flynn Weitzman,
1249 Boylston Street, 3rd floor, Boston, MA 02215, USA; e-mail:
Patricia_Weitzman@hms.harvard.edu
organization in deciding how to handle the conflict.
Sinnott and Johnson (1997) suggest that devel-
oping postformal thinking skills can also facilitate
becoming an ‘‘expert’’ in one’s profession. Being able
to see that the ‘‘truth’’ of a given situation is partly
the creation of an individual who makes a commit-
ment to some reality and then lives it out can, in turn,
lead to novel solutions to complex problems, thus
enhancing one’s ‘‘expertise’’ in a given area (Sinnott,
1984). On a practical level, being able to construc-
tively resolve conflicts at work can also reduce
potential social obstacles to professional success.
In this paper, we outline a training format for
adults in effective communication during interper-
sonal conflict, with suggestions for how to adapt it to
work-related conflicts. Unlike most conflict resolu-
tion training programs for use at work, ours focuses
on interpersonal issues between employees, rather
than larger scale conflicts between different sub-
groups within a company (see Bunker, 2000). We do
so because of research suggesting that interpersonal
conflicts with co-workers can be a source of stress for
working adults. We also discuss the critical role

45
1068-0667/06/0300-0045/0 Ó 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
46
of decision making in resolving work-related
conflicts, and how to raise trainee awareness of their
own decision making during conflict. A focus on
decision-making processes is typically absent from
interpersonal constructive conflict resolution training
protocols (Weitzman & Weitzman, 2000a). Creative
decision making is a hallmark of postformal thinking
(Sinnott, 1998). Such thinking is also associated with
becoming an expert in one’s field (Demick & Miller,
1993; Sinnott & Johnson, 1997). Thus, highlighting the
role of decision making in training can help adults with
the practical task of resolving an immediate conflict, as
well as facilitate the kind of thinking that may help
them become experts in their chosen careers.
Work-related Interpersonal Conflict
Studies indicate that college-educated adults,
particularly those in their 20s and early 30s, may feel
inept at handling interpersonal conflicts, especially
those encountered at work (Gardner & Lambert,
1992; Volkema & Bergmann, 1995). In a study of the
conflicts of young adult women, it was found that
most women reported being troubled by work-related
conflicts, and responding submissively to them (We-
itzman, 2001). At midlife, the re-assessment of work
goals and life ambitions that commonly occurs
(Levinson, 1980, 1996) may highlight, or even be
spurred by, interpersonal tensions at work. Further-
more, stress caused by interpersonal conflict at work
may be a determinant of work disability (Appleberg,
Romanov, Heikkila, Honkasalo, & Koskenvuo,
1996) as well as a contributor to risk for cardiovas-
cular disease (Smith & Christensen, 1992). These
pieces of research, taken together, point to the value
of training in constructive conflict resolution for
working adults.
Theory and Definitions
Our understanding of interpersonal communi-
cation in conflict draws from the late Roger Brown’s
and from Morton Deutsch’s theoretical work on
intergroup processes. Brown emphasizes that all
successful interpersonal communication requires that
the point of view of the other person be realistically
understood (Brown, 1965). While this may seem quite
obvious, it is a task that is difficult for most people to
achieve during the heat of an argument or other
stressful social interaction, unless they have learned
and practiced how to do so (Deutsch, 2000; Raider,
1995). Both Brown and Deutsch have pointed out
that mastering the ability to understand the other
Weitzman and Weitzman
person’s perspective, however, is worth the effort in
that it can lead to more open and trusting commu-
nication. Furthermore, Deutsch’s Crude Law of
Social Relations states that ‘‘the characteristic pro-
cesses and effects elicited by a given type of social
relationship also tend to elicit that type of social
relationship’’ (Deutsch, 2000, p. 29), Thus, when a
person in a conflict tries to communicate openly and
be inclusive of the other person’s point of view and
needs, it will likely induce the same communicative
behaviors on the part of the other person (Deutsch,
2000). Both Brown’s and Deutsch’s views are con-
textual in that they point to the reciprocal process of
mutual causality that can take place in social
exchanges.
Drawing from empirical work on conflict by
Deutsch and his colleagues (e.g. Deutsch, 1994; Rai-
der, 1995; Raider, Coleman, & Gerson, 2000), and
from the literature on promoting interpersonal com-
munication, certain skills consistently emerge as
effective for the resolution of conflict. Variants of
these skills can be found in most of the major
frameworks for promoting communication and/or
resolving conflicts. Such frameworks include cogni-
tive behavioral approaches (see Epstein, Baucom, &
Dauito, 1997), problem solving approaches (see
Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994); group process
approaches (see Bunker, 2000; Deutsch, 2000; Rai-
der, 1995); social learning approaches (see Pasch &
Bradbury, 1998); and competence-based communi-
cations approaches (Spitzberg, Canary, & Cupach,
1994). Below is a list of concepts and skills that
emerge from the literature, and which we have found
useful in our own training efforts (presented in
language that can be used in training):
Active Listening
When you actively listen you turn your full
attention to the overall message of the speaker, as
well as the details, rather than focusing on your own
concerns or on counter-arguments. You also provide
feedback to the speaker in order to ensure that you
understood the message. The feedback can involve
paraphrasing what you think the speaker said, and
asking questions to clarify. It should not include an
evaluation of, or a counter-argument to, what the
speaker said; rather, it should be an attempt to
understand his or her needs and concerns as he or she
sees them. The speaker can offer corrections to your
feedback so that you understand clearly what he or
she is trying to say.
Promoting Postformal Thinking
Perspective Taking
Perspective taking is largely an internal process,
fostered by active listening, in which you try to
understand how it might feel to be the other person in
the situation. In other words, perspective taking is
trying to understand the other person’s needs, con-
cerns, difficulties, and pain in this situation to a
similar extent as you understand your own needs,
concerns, etc.
Reframing
Reframing proceeds from active listening and
involves moving the conflict further away from an
adversarial ‘‘me against you’’ situation toward seeing
it as a mutual problem to be solved collaboratively.
You are now working with the other person to satisfy
both sets of needs. It can be initiated by such state-
ments as ‘‘what can we do so that you get what you
need which is [fill in the blank] and I get what I need
which is [fill in the blank].
Brainstorming
Brainstorming involves coming up with as many
solutions as possible for the problem, without cri-
tiquing them at first, and then narrowing them down
to come up with the solution or set of solutions that
best fits everyone’s needs. Generating many solu-
tions, quickly and without judging them at first, can
stimulate creativity and lead to unexpected solutions.
Training in Constructive Conflict Resolution
In our training experiences, we have focused on
active listening, reframing, and brainstorming (see
Weitzman, Dunigan, Hawkins, Weitzman, & Levk-
off, in press-a; Weitzman, Hardaway, Smakowski,
Weitzman, & Levkoff, in press-b). Cognitive psy-
chologists teach us that conceptual triads are easier to
remember than dyads or larger groupings (Baddeley,
1986). We have chosen particularly these three skills
because we believe that they represent some of those
most basic to promoting good communication. In
addition, they facilitate a shift in thinking toward
postformal thought. For example, by listening to and
repeating back what the other person in the conflict
has said, the trainee is provided with a concrete
means to better understand that contradiction, sub-
jectivity, and choice are inherent in all ‘‘objective’’
observations; and that one’s own and another’s view
of an objective situation can be equally ‘‘correct.’’
Such an awareness is a prerequisite for postformal
47
thinking (Sinnott, 1998). Reframing encourages the
trainee to make what in postformal theory is called a
metatheory shift, i.e. a shift between major ways of
conceptualizing the problem (Sinnott, 1991). The
trainee builds upon the broadened view of the prob-
lem accomplished through active listening, and now
works to redefine the nature of the problem from one
in which goals are mutually exclusive to mutually
inclusive. Finally, brainstorming helps trainees to
better understand that there can be multiple methods
to arrive at a solution, and that there may be multiple
solutions to a given problem, both of which are
postformal thinking operations (Sinnott, 1991).
Opening Discussion
To facilitate trainees’ thinking about conflict, it
can be helpful to open the training with a discussion
in which trainees are asked to describe interpersonal
difficulties from their jobs, and how they have
responded to them. These situations can then be
integrated into the training, which helps ensure that it
is more accessible, relevant, and useful. (If working
with college students, most have had part-time jobs
during the school year or summer from which inter-
personal conflict situations might be drawn.) The
real-life examples gathered in one training session can
then also be used in future trainings with similar
groups, particularly to encourage participants who
seem reluctant to talk about their conflicts. At the
opening of a training with young adult workers, for
example, it can be pointed out that in past trainings
young adults have said that they are often distressed
about conflicts occurring with a boss. This can help
current trainees to identify and talk about similar
situations from their own lives.
Of course, in workplace trainings the potential
for repercussions for discussing conflicts with supe-
riors, and related concerns of confidentiality must be
addressed. There are several ways to address these
concerns. One approach would be to suggest a norm
of confidentiality, but still advise participants not to
reveal information that they think might have
unwanted negative repercussions if it were passed on
to others in the organization. Other approaches are
possible if the training is part of an intervention or
organizational change effort. If what has been agreed
to is an effort to engage and work with existing
conflicts, and the person conducting the training is
prepared for and has been engaged to conduct such
an intervention, then it may be appropriate to surface
existing conflicts within the organization, and work
48
on them during the training session. It is important to
emphasize that this would be appropriate only if such
work is within the trainer’s competence, and all par-
ties have agreed to this goal.
Skills Training and Practice
After the discussion to raise trainees’ awareness
of their own responses to conflicts, the trainer(s) can
then introduce the three skills by first role-playing the
skills themselves, and then aiding the trainees in role-
playing the skills using their own and their fellow
trainees’ conflict situations. Trainees can be divided
into groups of two to role-play the skills. The trai-
ner(s) can circulate around the room to provide
assistance as needed. After each role-play session, the
group can come back together to discuss the process
and be introduced to the next skill to be worked on.
After each skill has been discussed and role-played,
additional time can be allotted for trainees to practice
using the skills for specific conflicts in their lives with
which they are struggling.
Closing Discussion
In the sections below, we discuss some of the
contextual features of job-related conflicts, such as
behavioral norms and power differences, that are
important to touch on in the training. Many of these
issues will naturally arise in the conflict scenarios that
trainees bring up for role-playing. Toward the end of
the training is an ideal time to also discuss the role of
decision making in conflict, since the trainees now
have a greater understanding of the process of con-
structively resolving conflicts (see below for ideas on
how to shape the decision-making discussion). After
discussing context and decision making, the session
can close with an opportunity for trainees to provide
feedback about the experience. We have found this
simple format to be effective for improving trainees’
understanding of and facility with the skills for
constructive conflict resolution (Weitzman et al.,
in press-a, in press-b).
The Context of Conflicts at Work
Contextual factors that can affect work conflicts
include behavioral norms, power differences, and
roles. For example, individuals may feel overly con-
strained in how they respond to interpersonal con-
flicts on the job because of norms of acceptable
workplace behaviors, and possible repercussions for
behaving outside of those norms (Deutsch, 1985).
Weitzman and Weitzman
While such norms are often helpful, in some cases
they can act to prevent potentially constructive
responses to conflict as, for example, if there is a
norm that dissatisfaction with a colleague’s inap-
propriate behavior is never to be expressed.
Power inequalities between individuals involved
in conflict can likewise influence responses (Deutsch,
1985). People normally do not want to do something
that might cause a more powerful person, e.g. a boss,
to use that power against them. As a result, the less
powerful individual may engage in ingratiating or
submissive behavior in an attempt to resolve the
conflict (Deutsch, 1985). Such behaviors can,
unfortunately, exacerbate stress (Pearlin, Mullan,
Semple, & Skaff, 1990; Vogele & Steptoe, 1992) and
contribute to job dissatisfaction.
In work organizations, people have roles, which
may be thought of as sets of expectations that others
have of the individual in that role, and are usually
not fully or accurately captured by written job
descriptions (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Sometimes roles
are ambiguous. Often there are discrepancies be-
tween the expectations that different people have of
a given role, which can create stress for the person
in the role. Furthermore, an individual often will
have several roles, sometimes with conflicting de-
mands. Thus, ambiguities and conflicts in role defi-
nitions and demands can create a range of conflicts
and stresses which are often both hard to identify
and hard to resolve. It can be useful to offer trainees
an opportunity to discuss these conflicts. Such
reflection can help them to identify the roots of their
conflicts, rather than just the surrogates for those
roots.
Another prerequisite for successful communi-
cation to resolve an interpersonal problem at work
is deciding if the issue is one that is better addressed
or left alone. Some problems clearly must be
resolved, e.g. those that have a major effect on
one’s ability to do one’s job well or on the com-
pany’s performance as a whole, or that violate some
moral or ethical principle. Others are annoyances
that can be tolerated with little cost, either in terms
of organizational functioning or personal happiness.
Many problems lie somewhere in between these two
extremes, and the individual must carefully weigh
the relative costs and benefits of action and inac-
tion. Due to possible repercussions for breaking
restrictive behavioral norms and/or challenging
individuals with greater power, some interpersonal
conflicts may be deemed too minor to risk negative
fallout caused by failed attempts at addressing
Promoting Postformal Thinking 49

them. Although, in general, certain communicative Decision Making in Conflict

strategies (e.g. open discussion, compromise, col-
Empirical research and clinical documentation
laboration) are more likely to lead to constructive
both suggest that greater thoughtfulness before
outcomes, and certain others (e.g. submission,
engaging in communication about a conflict can lead
ignoring the problem, acquiescing) are more likely
to improved communication in a variety of contexts,
to lead to unsatisfactory outcomes, at work these
including work and marriage (Burgoon, Berger, &
linkages between strategy and outcome can be less
Waldron, 2000). Furthermore, as individuals interact
absolute (Weitzman, 2001). Again, good decision
with others, unexpected variables may arise that
making is key. If in scrutinizing the situation, one
require rapid decisions to be made about how to
determines that an issue must be addressed, then
respond. Thus, the quality of decisions made before
the next important decision-making point is how
and during conflict, along with the process by which
one should go about addressing it.
they are made, can have an important impact on the
Active listening, for example, can help
course of the conflict, along with the particular
de-escalate the conflict, and make it much more
communicative behaviors employed.
likely that the other person will, in turn, listen more
Traditionally, good decision making has been
fully and carefully to one’s own concerns. If the
broadly defined as that which produces positive
conflict is with an individual who has greater
problem outcomes. Certainly, within the domain of
power, this constructive skill can help ensure that
communication, especially in conflict, an outcome of
one’s needs are heard without provoking the indi-
collaboration or compromise is viewed as ‘‘optimal.’’
vidual to use his/her power in a punitive way. Also,
However, as alluded to in the section above, there
the perspective taking that is fostered in this train-
may also be certain situations, particularly at work,
ing approach can be helpful in brainstorming
where a decision not to engage in interpersonal
solutions that will satisfy both parties’ needs, while
communication about a problem (thus precluding the
serving the larger goal of supporting the organiza-
possibility of collaboration) may be deemed more
tion’s success.
likely to lead to a positive outcome because the
Imagining creative, collaborative solutions for
potential costs of going after a collaborative resolu-
resolving the conflict before opening up a dialogue
tion—if one fails—may seem too great. Individual
about it may be particularly important for work-
decision making becomes central at these times.
related conflicts. Such advance preparation can help
There are not hard and fast rules about when one
minimize nervousness about initiating a discussion
should and when one should not try to engage in a
(after all, you already have some ideas about resolv-
constructive dialogue about a problem at work.
ing it constructively), and can also demonstrate to
However, we believe it is important to keep in mind
colleagues that one’s goals are not purely self-serving.
that there is often more potential for constructive
However, it should also be kept in mind that the
dialogue about an issue of conflict than people
solutions one has generated in advance may not be
typically assume.
acceptable to the other person, and further that
Higgins (2000) points out that people will be
people are more likely to be pleased with a solution
more satisfied with decision outcomes if the means
that they have taken part in creating than if the same
they used to obtain that outcome are consistent with
solution is handed to them ready made. The value in
their overall outlook or motivational orientation. So
imagining collaborative solutions beforehand is lar-
for example, if a person’s motivation in a situation is
gely in preparing oneself to be a good, collaborative
to fulfill some duty or uphold an ethical principle,
negotiator, one who is ready, able and willing to be
and the person used strategies that did not entail the
flexible and creative.
violation of any ethical principle, he/she is more
Finally, because behavioral norms may also be
likely to be satisfied with the outcome than if he/she
important to abide by, it is often best to plan ahead
obtained the same outcome, yet did so using strate-
for efforts to resolve a work-related conflict, deciding
gies that he/she felt embarrassed or ashamed of.
when and where to open the discussion. Reacting
While this may seem quite obvious, what is not al-
quickly or impulsively to a work-related conflict may
ways obvious or easy in the heat of conflict is to
increase the likelihood that some norms will be
evaluate how to get to a desired outcome, and to
unnecessarily violated, and that the problem will be
evaluate how one is going to feel about the strategies
made worse rather than better.
50
used to get to that outcome. If one’s goal is to return
to a state of good relations with another person, one
can decide to ignore the problem in order to maintain
that good relationship. And, many times it may
ostensibly work; that is, ‘‘good relations’’ may be
maintained. But one may feel bad about the situa-
tion, nonetheless, because the chosen course of action
entailed not speaking honestly about how one was
feeling. As a result, important needs may be left
unexpressed, and thus unmet. In addition, one may
have violated the ethical principle of honesty. And
that violation can have psychological as well as
physical costs.
What awareness of the fit between overall moti-
vation and decision making about strategies can
mean for constructive conflict resolution training is
that if individuals are encouraged to think ahead
about how they are going to feel afterward about the
strategies they use, they may be able to increase their
satisfaction with conflict outcomes. Furthermore,
greater thoughtfulness about strategies and their
implications, we believe, will lead to the use of
strategies that are more conducive to collaboration,
e.g. active listening, reframing, etc. It may be useful
to emphasize in trainings that before approaching
someone about a problem, it is wise not only to
consider the various ways to accomplish one’s goals,
but also how one will feel in the long run about the
means used to accomplish those goals. Again, this
may seem obvious, but it is a step that is very often
overlooked (Deutsch, 2000).
As stated earlier, the end of a training session is
often the best time to discuss the role of decision
making in conflict, since trainees will have by then a
greater understanding of inter-and intra-personal
aspects of conflict resolution. Hypothetical work
conflicts can be presented by trainers to help trainees
better understand their own values and beliefs about
conflicts at work, and how these might play into their
decision making. The purpose here would not be so
much to critique trainees’ beliefs, but rather to give
them the opportunity to explore potential decision
outcomes, practice decision making before engaging
in a conflict, and to identify for themselves what their
own decision making biases may be.
Future Directions
Training interventions around conflict can raise
individual awareness of how one’s own decisions in
conflict can lead to satisfactory or unsatisfactory
outcomes, and can help individuals identify what
Weitzman and Weitzman
their goals are, what strategies are more likely to
achieve them, and how to enact them. Even if the
other person in the conflict has not had the benefit of
training, we know that in conflict dyads, people tend
to reciprocate behaviors (Burggraf & Sillars, 1987;
Deutsch, 2000). Colleagues who, in a conflict, feel
listened to and understood, are more likely to extend
those behaviors back (Sillars, Wilmot, & Hocker,
1993). When at least one person in a work conflict has
some idea how to proceed constructively, it is more
likely that the relationship will be strengthened after
the conflict rather than weakened.
The fact that just one person’s ability to listen
effectively and reframe can predict better conflict
outcomes highlights some issues worth exploring in
future research on job-related interpersonal conflicts.
To a great degree theorists and practitioners in conflict
resolution have viewed the relationship or system to be
the target of change (see Deutsch, 2000; Lewicki &
Wiethoff, 2000; Miller & Rogers, 1976). However,
some practitioners are recognizing that a greater
focus on the individual can help make interventions
more effective (e.g. Epstein et al., 1997; Halford,
Sanders, & Behrens, 1994; Spitzberg et al., 1994).
These practitioners do not suggest an emphasis on
relationship is misplaced. Rather, they simply point
out that the individual’s responsibility must not be
overlooked, as can sometimes occur when thinking
from a relationship or systems point of view. Cog-
nitive changes on the part of the individual—such as
learning to actively listen so that attributions about
the other person’s behavior are changed, or learning
to closely consider short/long term costs to oneself,
the other, and the organization before deciding how
to proceed—can lead to increased satisfaction and
decreased conflict without any actual changes in the
other person’s behavior (Epstein et al., 1997; Halford
et al., 1994). This may be especially relevant to work
conflicts where changes in the other person’s behavior
may not be likely or relevant.
Overall, communicators who become more
aware of their own internal processes during conflict,
including erroneous attributions about the other
person, incomplete understandings of the other per-
son’s message, etc. are more likely to judge the other
person less harshly, which can lead to stronger rela-
tionships and better conflict outcomes.
Furthermore, it is precisely these processes that
facilitate postformal reasoning in adulthood (Sinnott,
1998; Sinnott & Johnson, 1997). Initiating such pro-
grams may, in the short term, provide information on
what approaches and formats may best meet the
Promoting Postformal Thinking
communication and conflict resolution training needs
of members of the workforce and, in the long term,
help improve employee productivity, facilitate
‘‘expert’’ thinking, and possibly reduce job-related
stress. We offer this training protocol as a starting
point for readers to further refine and develop for use
with particular employee groups.
REFERENCES
Appelberg, K., Romanov, K., Heikkila, K., Honkasalo, M., &
Koskenvuo, M. (1996). Interpersonal conflict as a predictor of
work disability: A follow-up study of 15,348 Finnish employ-
ees. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 40, 157–167.
Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Baucom, D., & Epstein, N. (1990). Behavioral marital therapy. New
York: Brunner/Mazel.
Brown, R. (1965). Social psychology. New York: Free Press.
Bunker, B. B. (2000). Managing conflict through large-group
methods. In M. Deutsch, & P. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook
of conflict resolution (pp. 21–40). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burggraf, C., & Sillars, A. (1987). A critical examination of sex
differences in marital communication. Communication Mono-
graphs, 54, 276–294.
Burgoon, J., Berger, C., & Waldron, V. (2000). Mindfulness and
interpersonal communication. Journal of Social Issues, 56,
105–128.
Demick, J., & Miller, P. (Eds.). (1993). Development in the
workplace. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice. Yale: New Haven.
Deutsch, M. (1994). Constructive conflict resolution: Principles,
training, and research. Journal of Social Issues, 50(1), 13–32.
Deutsch, M. (2000). Cooperation and conflict. In M. Deutsch, &
P. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution (pp.
21–40). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Epstein, N, Baucom, D., & Daiuto, A. (1997). Cognitive behavioral
couples therapy. In K. Halford, & H. Markman (Eds.),
Clinical handbook of marriage and couples interventions (pp.
415–449). New York: Wiley.
Evers, F. T., & Gilbert, S. N. (1991). Outcomes assessment: How
much value does university education add?. Canadian Journal
of Higher Education, 21, 53–76.
Gardner, P. D., & Lambert, S. (1992). It’s a hard, hard, hard world!.
East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Collegiate
Employment Research Institute.
Halford, K., Sanders, M., & Behrens, B. (1994). Self regulation in
couples therapy. Behavioral Therapy, 25, 431–452.
Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit.
American Psychologist, 55, 1217–1230.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of
organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Levinson, D. (1980). Conceptions of the adult life course. In
N. Smelser, & E. Erikson (Eds.), Themes of work and love in
adulthood Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Levinson, D. (1996). The season’s of a woman’s life. New York:
Knopf.
Lewicki, R., & Wiethoff, C. (2000). Trust, trust development, and
trust repair. In M. Deutsch, & P. Coleman (Eds.), The
handbook of conflict resolution (pp. 86–107). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Miller, F., & Rogers, L. (1976). The relational approach to
interpersonal communication. In G. Miller (Ed.), Exploring
interpersonal communication (pp. 87–104). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
51
Minick, P., & Gueldner, S. H. (1995). Patterns of conflict and anger
in women sixty years and older: An interpretive study. Journal
of Women and Aging, 7, 71–84.
Pasch, L., & Bradbury, T. (1998). Social support, conflict, and the
development of marital dysfunction. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 66, 219–230.
Pearlin, L. I., Mullan, J. T., Semple, S. J., & Skaff, M. M. (1990).
Caregiving and the stress process: An overview of concepts
and their measures. The Gerontologist, 30, 583–594.
Raider, E. (1995). Conflict resolution training in schools: Translat-
ing theory into applied skills. In B. Bunker, & J. Rubin (Eds.),
Conflict, cooperation and justice San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Raider, E., Coleman, S., & Gerson, J. (2000). Teaching conflict
resolution skills in a workshop. In M. Deutsch, & P. Coleman
(Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution (pp. 131–143). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rubin, J., Pruitt, D., & Kim, S. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation,
stalemate, and settlement. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sillars, A. L., Wilmot, W., & Hocker, J. C. (1993). Communicating
strategically in conflict and mediation. In J. Wiemann, &
J. Daly (Eds.), Communicating strategically Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Sinnott, J. D. (1984). Postformal reasoning: The relativistic stage.
In M. Commons, R. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond
formal operation: Late adolescent and adult cognitive develop-
ment (pp. 298–325). New York: Praeger.
Sinnott, J. D. (1991). Limits to problem solving: Emotion,
intention, goal clarity, health, and other factors in postformal
thought. In J. D. Sinott, & J. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Bridging
paradigms: Positive development in adulthood and cognitive
aging New York: Praeger.
Sinnott, J. D. (1998). The development of logic in adulthood. New
York: Plenum.
Sinnott, J. D. (Ed.). (1994). Interdisciplinary handbook of adult
lifespan learning. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Sinnott, J. D., & Johnson, L. (1997). Complex postformal thought
in skilled research administrators. Journal of Adult Develop-
ment, 4(1), 45–53.
Smith, T. W., & Christensen, A. (1992). Cardiovascular reactivity
and interpersonal relations: Psychosomatic processes in social
context. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 279–301.
Spitzberg, B., Canary, D., & Cupach, W. (1994). A compe-
tence-based approach to the study of interpersonal conflict.
In D. Cahn (Ed.), Conflict in personal relationships (pp.
183–202). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vogele, C., & Steptoe, A. (1992). Emotional coping and tonic
blood pressure as determinants of cardiovascular responses to
mental stress. Journal of Hypertension, 10, 1079–1087.
Volkema, R. J., & Bergmann, T. J. (1995). Conflict styles as
indicators of behavioral patterns in interpersonal conflicts.
Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 5–15.
Weitzman, P. F. (2001). Brief report: Young adult women resolving
conflicts. Journal of Adult Development, 8, 61–67.
Weitzman, P. F., Dunigan, R., Hawkins, R., Weitzman, E., &
Levkoff, S. (in press-a). Everyday sources of conflict and stress
among older African American women. Journal of Ethnic and
Cultural Diversity in Social Work.
Weitzman, P. F., Hardaway, C., Smakowski, P., & Levkoff, S. (in
press-b). A constructive conflict resolution training protocol
for older African American women.
Weitzman, E. A., & Weitzman, P. F. (2000a). Problem-solving
and decision-making in conflict resolution. In M. Deutsch, &
P. Coleman (Eds.), Handbook of conflict resolution: Theory
and practice (pp. 185–209). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weitzman, P. F., & Weitzman, E. A. (2000b). Interpersonal
negotiation strategies in a sample of older women. Journal of
Clinical Geropsychology, 6, 41–51.