Chapter 2 Exercises: The Anatomy of a Confrontation — What's Actually Happening

These exercises progress from conceptual understanding through applied practice. Use the difficulty ratings to guide your sequence: ★ (foundational), ★★ (intermediate), ★★★ (advanced or emotionally demanding). Complete exercises in order within each section, or use them selectively based on your learning goals.

Part A: Conceptual Exercises

1. Layer Identification [Conceptual] ★

Read the following statement and identify which layer(s) of the Five-Layer Model it primarily addresses. Explain your reasoning in 2–3 sentences.

"You always take credit for my ideas in front of the whole department."

Consider: Is this a triggering event? A stated position? Does it hint at an underlying need? A value concern? A relational pattern?

2. Matching Exercise [Conceptual] ★

Match each example on the left with the most accurate layer on the right.

Write 1–2 sentences justifying each match.

3. Positions vs. Interests Distinction [Conceptual] ★

For each stated position below, write one plausible underlying interest and one plausible underlying need.

a. "I want to be included in the budget decisions." b. "I need you to stop texting me after 10 p.m." c. "I think we should alternate who picks up the kids." d. "I don't think this meeting needs to be weekly."

4. Meaning-Making Definitions [Conceptual] ★

In your own words, define meaning-making as used in this chapter. Then explain: why is it important for someone navigating a conflict to understand that meaning-making is happening? What practical difference does that understanding make?

Aim for 150–200 words.

5. Villain-Victim-Helpless Roles [Conceptual] ★

Explain in your own words why the villain-victim-helpless story structure is psychologically appealing. What does each role provide to the person holding it? Why might someone resist giving up this story, even when it is making the conflict worse?

6. Presenting Complaint vs. Underlying Issue [Conceptual] ★★

For each presenting complaint below, identify two or three possible underlying issues. Be specific — don't just say "feelings were hurt." What needs, values, or relational concerns might be involved?

a. "You forgot our anniversary." b. "You never defend me when your family criticizes me." c. "You went ahead and made the decision without asking me." d. "You keep correcting me in front of other people."

7. The Five-Layer Model — Theoretical Critique [Conceptual] ★★

The Five-Layer Model suggests that conflicts have multiple simultaneous layers. A skeptic might argue: "Most conflicts really are about what they appear to be about — not everything is deep and psychological." How would you respond to this argument? In what kinds of conflicts might the skeptic be right? When would they be wrong? Write a 200–250 word response.

8. Cultural Dimensions of Meaning-Making [Conceptual] ★★

Meaning-making is shaped, in part, by cultural frameworks. Consider Jade Flores, whose Mexican-American household taught her that directness could be disrespectful — and how that shapes her interpretation of her mother Rosa's questions.

a. What cultural framework might lead someone to interpret Rosa's questions as caring and appropriate? b. What cultural framework might lead someone to interpret the same questions as intrusive? c. What does this tell us about the relationship between cultural background and conflict interpretation?

9. Relational History as Context [Conceptual] ★★

Consider this statement: "The same behavior means something completely different depending on its history."

Give two examples — one from the chapter and one of your own creation — that illustrate this claim. Then explain: what obligation does this create for us when we are in a conflict with someone? What should we try to understand about the history before we respond?

10. Gottman's 69% [Conceptual] ★★

John Gottman's research found that 69% of couple conflicts are "perpetual problems" rather than solvable problems. What are the implications of this finding for how we approach conflict? Does it make conflict resolution seem hopeless, or does it change what "resolution" means? Write a 200-word reflection.

Part B: Scenario-Based Exercises

11. Marcus and the Paralegal Situation [Scenario] ★

Recall from Chapter 1 that Marcus avoided confronting his supervisor Diane about credit for his research memo.

Using the Five-Layer Model, fill in each layer for that conflict as you understand it from Chapter 1 and your knowledge of Marcus's character. For any layer where you have to make reasonable inferences (since the full picture was not given), label your inference clearly.

Layer 1: Layer 2: Layer 3: Layer 4: Layer 5:

Then answer: Which layer do you think was most important in driving Marcus's avoidance? Why?

12. Jade and Rosa — Meaning-Making Analysis [Scenario] ★★

Revisit the scenario from Section 2.3: Jade mentions she's thinking about changing her major; Rosa asks concerned questions.

a. Write out Jade's internal meaning-making in this moment. What is she telling herself about Rosa's questions? b. Write out Rosa's internal meaning-making. What is she telling herself about her own behavior and Jade's reaction? c. Identify at least one moment where each of them could have paused their automatic meaning-making and asked a question instead. What question could each have asked?

13. Sam and Tyler — Story Audit [Scenario] ★★

Sam Nguyen, operations manager, believes his report Tyler is lazy and disrespectful of the team. Sam has been documenting Tyler's missed deadlines but hasn't had a direct conversation.

a. Write out Sam's villain-victim-helpless story in full. Be specific — what exact beliefs does Sam hold about Tyler (villain), himself (victim), and his options (helpless)? b. Generate three alternative explanations for Tyler's behavior that Sam has not considered. c. What contribution has Sam made to this situation through his avoidance? d. Write the one question Sam most needs to ask Tyler — not to accuse, but to genuinely understand.

14. Dr. Priya Okafor — Layers at Work [Scenario] ★★

Dr. Priya Okafor, hospital department head, has an indirect boss in Dr. Harmon. Over the past month, Dr. Harmon has twice assigned Priya's department resources to another team without telling her first, explaining it afterward as "just logistics." Priya is deeply bothered but hasn't raised it directly.

a. Identify what you think the triggering events are (Layer 1). b. What do you think Priya's stated position would be if she raised this? (Layer 2) c. What are Priya's likely underlying interests and needs? (Layer 3) d. What values and identity concerns might be at stake for Priya — and for Dr. Harmon? (Layer 4) e. What relational history details would you want to know before advising Priya? (Layer 5)

15. The Three-Person Conflict Map [Scenario] ★★★

Sometimes a conflict involves more than two parties. Consider: Sam has a conflict with Tyler about deadlines; but Tyler has told Sam that he keeps missing deadlines because the team's project management system is broken and keeps dropping tasks — something that Sam's boss, Marcus Webb, refuses to fix because it would require budget approval.

Map this three-person conflict. Who are the parties? What are the layers for each dyad (Sam-Tyler, Sam-Webb, Tyler-Webb)? Where do the interests overlap? What is the real problem?

16. Confrontation Reconstruction [Scenario] ★★

Read the following brief exchange. Then reconstruct what was happening at each layer.

Alex: Can we talk about something? I feel like you've been really distant lately. Jordan: I'm not distant. I've just been busy. Alex: You're always busy when I try to bring something up. Jordan: Here we go.

For each layer of the Five-Layer Model, write 2–4 sentences describing what you think might be happening beneath this surface exchange. Then write: What is the one thing that would most need to be said for this conversation to go somewhere productive?

Part C: Applied Exercises

17. Your Own Conflict Map [Applied] ★★

Identify a real conflict in your life — one that is either ongoing or that recently ended without full resolution. Complete the Conflict Map template from Section 2.5 in full. Work through all seven sections honestly.

After completing the map, write a 150-word reflection: What did you learn from doing this? What was the hardest section to complete? Did the map change how you see the conflict?

18. Story Audit — Live Conflict [Applied] ★★

For the same conflict you identified in Exercise 17, or a different one, write out your villain-victim-helpless story explicitly. Be specific and honest — the more clearly you can articulate the story, the more useful this exercise will be.

Then challenge each element: - Villain: What information would change how you see the other person? What might they be experiencing that you don't know about? - Victim: What, if anything, have you contributed to this situation? What choices did you make that played a role? - Helpless: What is one action you could take — however small — that would be different from what you've been doing?

19. The Alternative Story [Applied] ★★

Using the conflict from Exercise 17 or 18, write out an alternative account of what happened — one that explains the other person's behavior charitably, assumes their positive intent, and acknowledges your own contribution.

This is not about being a pushover or pretending bad behavior didn't happen. It is about expanding the story to include more than one perspective. Write 200–300 words.

After writing it: Does this alternative story change what you want to do or say when you engage this conflict? How?

20. Identifying the Real Issue [Applied] ★★

Think of a conflict — past or present — where you now believe the presenting complaint was masking an underlying issue.

a. What was the presenting complaint? b. What was the underlying issue? c. How did you (or the other party) handle only the presenting complaint? d. What happened as a result? Did the underlying issue resurface? e. What would addressing the underlying issue have looked like?

21. Meaning-Making Observation [Applied] ★

For the next three days, keep a brief log. Each time you notice yourself interpreting someone's behavior in a negative way — attributing bad intent, assuming criticism, reading subtext — record:

1. What happened (observable facts only)
2. What you made it mean
3. One alternative interpretation

At the end of three days, review your log. What patterns do you notice in your meaning-making? Are there specific types of behavior, specific people, or specific contexts that reliably trigger negative interpretations?

22. Relational History Inventory [Applied] ★★

Choose a relationship in which you currently have some conflict or tension. Spend 15 minutes writing out a relational history — not a complaint list, but a genuine account of the significant moments between you and this person. Include:

• Moments of connection or goodwill
• Moments of friction or disappointment
• Unresolved conversations
• Times when you contributed to a problem
• Times when they did something you appreciated but didn't tell them

After writing: How does having this fuller picture change how you see the current conflict?

Part D: Synthesis Exercises

23. Layer Analysis Across Conflict Types [Synthesis] ★★

The Five-Layer Model is designed to apply to any conflict — between individuals, in teams, between organizations. Choose two very different types of conflict (e.g., a couple's argument and a labor-management dispute, or a friend group disagreement and an international negotiation) and analyze how each layer applies differently across the two contexts.

What remains consistent? What varies? What does this tell us about the universality of the model versus the need to adapt it to context?

24. Integrating the Concepts [Synthesis] ★★★

Write a 400–500 word essay that integrates all five of the chapter's key concepts: the Five-Layer Model, the surface vs. underlying issue distinction, meaning-making, the villain-victim-helpless story, and the Conflict Map.

Use a single case — either from the chapter's characters or a real situation you are familiar with — to show how these concepts interact. The essay should demonstrate that you understand not just what each concept is, but how they connect and reinforce each other.

25. The "Same Event" Exercise [Synthesis] ★★

Choose any conflict scenario — real or hypothetical. Write two first-person accounts of the same event, each from one of the parties' perspectives. The two accounts should describe the same triggering event and conversation, but should differ in:

• What each person noticed and remembered
• What each person made it mean
• What each person felt was at stake

Then write a brief analytical paragraph: What does the exercise reveal about the role of meaning-making in conflict? What would each person need to understand about the other's account to move toward resolution?

26. Advice Column [Synthesis] ★★

A student writes to you:

"I had a fight with my roommate last night about noise. She said I was being inconsiderate with music at 11 p.m. I said I didn't think it was that late. We agreed I'd use headphones after 10, and I thought we were done. But this morning she was still cold to me. I don't understand — we settled it. What am I missing?"

Write a 300-word response that uses the Five-Layer Model and the concept of underlying issues to explain what might be happening and what this person might do next.

27. Conflict Literature Connection [Synthesis] ★★★

Fisher and Ury's Getting to Yes (1981) introduced the positions/interests distinction. Patterson et al.'s Crucial Conversations (2002) introduced the villain-victim-helpless story structure. Stone, Patton, and Heen's Difficult Conversations (1999) introduced the three embedded conversations and meaning-making.

Write a 350-word synthesis: How do these three frameworks complement each other? What does each one add that the others don't fully address? If you could only give someone one of these frameworks before a difficult conversation, which would you choose and why?

28. Design an Intervention [Synthesis] ★★★

You are a conflict coach working with a team at a mid-sized company. Two team members — a senior developer and a project manager — have been in ongoing conflict for three months. The surface issue is that the developer frequently misses the PM's deadlines and doesn't communicate in advance when she's going to be late. The PM has complained to HR. The developer says the PM's deadlines are "arbitrary" and "not based on technical reality."

Using everything from this chapter, design a brief intervention process: 1. What would you want to understand about each layer before convening them? 2. What meaning-making might each party be engaged in? 3. What is the likely underlying issue on each side? 4. What is one question you would ask each party in a private pre-meeting? 5. What would a conversation aimed at Layer 3 (interests) rather than Layer 2 (positions) look like?

29. Self-Assessment: Which Layers Do You Engage? [Synthesis] ★★

Reflect honestly on your own conflict patterns:

a. Which layer do you tend to address first when you are in a conflict? b. Which layer do you most often skip or avoid? c. What does your villain-victim-helpless story usually look like? (What roles do you tend to play? What story elements recur?) d. How does your meaning-making style — what you tend to assume about others' behavior — affect your conflicts?

Write 300–400 words. Be specific and honest.

30. The Before and After [Synthesis] ★★★

Think back to a conflict that is now resolved — one where things eventually got better between you and another person.

a. Using the Five-Layer Model, describe what was actually happening during the conflict. Include all five layers as best you can reconstruct them. b. What caused the conflict to shift or resolve? Which layer did the turning point address? c. What do you know now about that conflict that you didn't know when you were in it? d. How would you handle the same situation differently today, armed with the frameworks from this chapter?

Write 400–500 words.