Conflict Avoidance Among LDS Students

[Smiley McGee]

Coincidental to another thread I started earlier this week, a podcast episode dropped yesterday regarding conflict resolution styles among LDS students vs. the general population. The podcast essentially recaps an article published in sunstone in 2013 [link]. Note the research referenced includes a sample of 286 students at Weber State University, not the general LDS population. Despite the limitations, I found the article an interesting and entertaining read. 

Professor Stevens is a professor at Weber State's business school. He begins by noting his observations of the preferred conflict resolution styles of students at Weber vs those exhibited by students elsewhere. He begins by stating:

Quote

In 2008, personal and professional circumstances brought me to Weber State University in Ogden, Utah. As I began to teach my usual rotation of courses using the 'Behavior Description Questionnaire' (BDQ), I noticed a striking trend with my students along the Wasatch Front—occurring with undergraduate and graduate (MBA) students, and with males and females. The preference for the avoidance style of conflict resolution was surfacing at a significantly higher rate than I had seen in the Midwest and Texas.

The BDQ rates a person's self described responses to conflict on a 0-12 scale, with a higher score representing a higher propensity to adopt a certain strategy. He continues,

Quote

Descriptively speaking, the difference in the avoidance style was quite simple and straightforward to confirm. While the average avoidance scores for my comparison student samples from the Midwest and Texas was 4.0 (out of possible scores ranging from 0 to 12), the observed average score for my Weber State University students was 7.5.

Uncovering the potential factors behind these scores required some additional demographic data. I started asking students to include the following information with the BDQ test: (1) Whether they were born and raised along the Wasatch Front or relocated there later in life; (2) Whether they were raised in a strong religious environment (and if so, in which faith tradition); (3) Whether they would currently describe themselves as an actively participating member of a church or religious community (and if so, which one); and (4) Gender.

The results by demographic are noted below:

Quote

When Weber State students were separated based on whether they had been raised in Utah or relocated later in life, the avoidance score went down to 5.5 for non-Utah natives, and increased to 8.3 for those who reported being originally from the Wasatch Front area. When Weber State students were further separated based on whether they self-reported as belonging to the LDS Church versus “other” (due to limited sample sizes, all non-LDS students were combined into a single group called “other”), the avoidance score went down to 5.6 for non-LDS students, and increased to 8.7 for LDS students. Finally, when the category of growing up in Utah was combined with being raised LDS, the avoidance score increased to 9.1, which is more than two standard deviations higher than the average scores of my comparison groups from the Midwest and Texas.

Though it isn't appropriate to formally extrapolate these results to the broader LDS population, decades of personal experience in the church left me unsurprised. But let me be more specific. The results align with what I would expect of the rank and file I've interacted with throughout the western US. Stevens goes on to suggest that "the passive-aggression label can be misleading; a more accurate description would be passive-hostility or passive-contempt." When conflict regarding church teachings or policy is encountered, "passive-hostility" is what I typically observe through "keeping one’s distance and remaining silent or aloof; hiding one’s true thoughts, feelings, or emotions; suppressing, setting aside, or ignoring issues that otherwise should be addressed; postponing or ignoring decisions; resisting change and otherwise championing the status quo; citing rules, policies, procedures, or higher authority as both a defensive and offensive tactic; and providing little meaningful or worthwhile feedback."

There is at least one subgroup of LDS members who I believe tend to buck this trend: individuals in higher levels of leadership. My mission and extracurricular activities at BYU brought me in to contact, and often constant contact, with individuals who were at the time or who would go on to be Seventies and/or Apostles. Far from avoidant, these individuals displayed strong competitive and assertive behaviors, often displaying aggression in response to conflict (for example, my mission president, who went on to serve in the second quorum of seventy was a piece of work).

As I feel that church leadership is likely dominated by non-passive-aggressive individuals, I find it interesting that they often advocate for avoidant strategies among the general membership. For example, they counsel members to avoid doubt (doubt your doubts), avoid conflicting and disconfirming information (only use church approved sources), be submissive to leadership (don't criticize even if the criticism is true), and disconnect with those who doubt the church's teachings. Ignoring one's idea of the right- or wrongness of these behaviors, I find the apparent lack of consistency interesting. Or perhaps leadership privately engages in passive-aggressive behavior towards doubt and disconfirming information and reserves more assertive/aggressive strategies for church administration. 

Stevens' goes on to cite what he sees as examples of conflict-avoidant behavior seen in the larger LDS population and suggests reasons why this passive-aggression may be prevalent among church members. Those interested can read the article linked above. 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Smiley McGee
grammar; redundancy

[pogi]

That is really interesting. 

This reminds me of the title of a documentary about the FLDS - Keep Sweet: Pray and Obey. 

I definitely recognize that culture in the mainstream church as well, but not quite to the same extent. 

[Nofear]

I also see conflict avoidance in counsel such as "turn the other check", "go with him twain", "forgive seventy times seven", or Marriott's philosophy (? source) of not driving a hard bargain. Conflict avoidance should not be conflated with submission, subservience, blind obedience, being a push over, etc. If one were to conflate the ideas, it'd say far more about them than what they want to say about conflict avoiders.

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I also see conflict avoidance in counsel such as "turn the other check", "go with him twain", "forgive seventy times seven", or Marriott's philosophy (? source) of not driving a hard bargain. Conflict avoidance should not be conflated with submission, subservience, blind obedience, being a push over, etc. If one were to conflate the ideas, it'd say far more about them than what they want to say about conflict avoiders.

I would call Jesus's counsel to be more of a "compassionate conflict resolution" style, rather than "conflict avoidance".   He definitely addressed issues in a compassionate way instead of avoiding them. 

[Nofear]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

I would call Jesus's counsel to be more of a "compassionate conflict resolution" style, rather than "conflict avoidance".   He definitely addressed issues in a compassionate way instead of avoiding them. 

Fair enough.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

Coincidental to another thread I started earlier this week, a podcast episode dropped yesterday regarding conflict resolution styles among LDS students vs. the general population. The podcast essentially recaps an article published in sunstone in 2013 [link]. Note the research referenced includes a sample of 286 students at Weber State University, not the general LDS population. Understand the limitations of the study. Despite the limitations, I found the article an interesting and entertaining read. 

Professor Stevens is a professor at Weber State's business school. He begins by noting his observations of the preferred conflict resolution styles of students at Weber vs those exhibited by students elsewhere. He begins by stating:

The BDQ rates a person's self described responses to conflict on a 0-12 scale, with a higher score representing a higher propensity to adopt a certain strategy. He continues,

The results by demographic are noted below:

Though it isn't appropriate to formally extrapolate these results to the broader LDS population, or even those outside of the demographic sampled, decades of personal experience in the church left me unsurprised. But let me be more specific. The results align with what I would expect of the rank and file I've interacted with throughout the western US. Stevens goes on to suggest that "the passive-aggression label can be misleading; a more accurate description would be passive-hostility or passive-contempt." When conflict regarding church teachings or policy is encountered, "passive-hostility" is what I typically observe through "keeping one’s distance and remaining silent or aloof; hiding one’s true thoughts, feelings, or emotions; suppressing, setting aside, or ignoring issues that otherwise should be addressed; postponing or ignoring decisions; resisting change and otherwise championing the status quo; citing rules, policies, procedures, or higher authority as both a defensive and offensive tactic; and providing little meaningful or worthwhile feedback."

There is at least one subgroup of LDS members who I believe tend to buck this trend: individuals in higher levels of leadership. My mission and extracurricular activities at BYU brought me in to contact, and often constant contact, with individuals who were at the time or who would go on to be Seventies and/or Apostles. Far from avoidant, these individuals displayed strong competitive and assertive behaviors, often displaying aggression in response to conflict (for example, my mission president, who went on to serve in the second quorum of seventy was a piece of work).

As I feel that church leadership is likely dominated by non-passive-aggressive individuals, I find it interesting that they often advocate for avoidant strategies among the general membership. For example, they counsel members to avoid doubt (doubt your doubts), avoid conflicting and disconfirming information (only use church approved sources), be submissive to leadership (don't criticize even if the criticism is true), and disconnect with those who doubt the church's teachings. Ignoring one's idea of the right- or wrongness of these behaviors, I find the apparent lack of consistency interesting. Or perhaps leadership privately engages in passive-aggressive behavior towards doubt and disconfirming information and reserves more assertive/aggressive strategies for church administration. 

Stevens' goes on to cites what he sees as examples of conflict-avoidant behavior seen in the larger LDS population and suggests reasons why this passive-aggression may be prevalent among church members. Those interested can read the article linked above. 

 

 

The author cites his studies on conflict avoidance. Passive-aggression is something else, and is only one (rare, I believe) strategy to address conflict. Other strategies for avoidance buy time for relationship building and prepare the way for functional conflict resolution. Is there a study he is using that directly measures a high level of passive aggressiveness for this population? It appears he is jumping to that conclusion from his tests on conflict avoidance.

[Smiley McGee]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The author cites his studies on conflict avoidance. Passive-aggression is something else, and is only one (rare, I believe) strategy to address conflict. Other strategies for avoidance buy time for relationship building and prepare the way for functional conflict resolution. Is there a study he is using that directly measures a high level of passive aggressiveness for this population? It appears he is jumping to that conclusion from his tests on conflict avoidance.

The author uses the terms interchangeably. See the table in the article and note that he uses the term "passive-aggression" several times when referring to the "Avoid" column. Further note that he notes several passive-aggressive behaviors that are avoidant in nature:

Quote

In its milder forms, passive-aggression will manifest itself merely as polite and innocuous attempts to steer clear of uncomfortable topics or encounters with others.

and, 

Quote

A passive-aggressive person will generally deploy such behavioral tactics as: keeping one’s distance and remaining silent or aloof; hiding one’s true thoughts, feelings, or emotions; suppressing, setting aside, or ignoring issues that otherwise should be addressed; postponing or ignoring decisions; resisting change and otherwise championing the status quo; citing rules, policies, procedures, or higher authority as both a defensive and offensive tactic; and providing little meaningful or worthwhile feedback.

 

[Smiley McGee]

46 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Passive-aggression is something else, and is only one (rare, I believe) strategy to address conflict.

This rarity is critical to the author's research interest as noted in the article. Generally it is the least used strategy but LDS students in his study preferred it with abnormal frequency. 

Quote

When the category of growing up in Utah was combined with being raised LDS, the avoidance score increased to 9.1, which is more than two standard deviations higher than the average scores of my comparison groups....

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

The author uses the terms interchangeably. See the table in the article and note that he uses the term "passive-aggression" several times when referring to the "Avoid" column. Further note that he notes several passive-aggressive behaviors that are avoidant in nature:

and, 

 

I noticed that, which is why I asked. Not sure what to make of it (what is he going for?).

35 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

This rarity is critical to the author's research interest as noted in the article. Generally it is the least used strategy but LDS students in his study preferred it with abnormal frequency. 

 

Yes, it is rare, which is why he shouldn't have used the terms interchangeably to draw conclusions of abnormality.

At any rate, if there are some good studies out there on the behavioral coping mechanisms of this population, that would be valuable (if you have any).

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I would call Jesus's counsel to be more of a "compassionate conflict resolution" style, rather than "conflict avoidance".   He definitely addressed issues in a compassionate way instead of avoiding them. 

Sometimes.  He wasn't compassionate with the pharisees and other religious leaders.  Yet He was definitely with others.  I think it depended on the person.

[pogi]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sometimes.  He wasn't compassionate with the pharisees and other religious leaders.  Yet He was definitely with others.  I think it depended on the person.

True, but my main point was that his style was not "conflict avoidance" in nature.

[MustardSeed]

I do believe our culture has encouraged conflict avoidance overall.  IMO. 
 

Remember the prophet (was it president Benson) who claimed he and his wife had never had an argument? 
 

No thank you.  In my mind, that just means someone is probably getting their own way a lot. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I noticed that, which is why I asked. Not sure what to make of it (what is he going for?).

Yes, it is rare, which is why he shouldn't have used the terms interchangeably to draw conclusions of abnormality.

At any rate, if there are some good studies out there on the behavioral coping mechanisms of this population, that would be valuable (if you have any).

How do we know it is that rare?  I think everyone uses this behavior to some extent.   

I think he uses the terms interchangeably because conflict avoidance is passive aggressive behavior. 

Quote

However it manifests, passive aggression is the fine art of being angry without seeming angry. There are two ingredients: anger and avoidance.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/5-tricks-to-handle-passive-aggressive-people/

Quote

Passive-aggression is a learned response rather than an instinct; it’s a uniquely modern behaviour we developed as a way to avoid conflict when fighting or fleeing aren’t options. 

https://manifest.me/insights/passive-aggressive/

Quote

By definition, passive-aggressive people avoid conflict.
https://melodywilding.com/how-to-deal-with-passive-aggressive-people/

And my favorite:

Quote

 

Passive-aggressive people avoid conflict like turds on the sidewalk. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-be-yourself/202010/5-ways-deal-passive-aggressive-people

 

 

Why it shows up so much in Mormon culture (at least from my observation) might be explained below:

Quote

 

Along the way, most people who are passive-aggressive learned that it’s not okay to be angry or upset. Maybe they were taught that conflict is threatening and has to be avoided at all costs. Maybe they were taught that being “nice” and not rocking the boat is the only option.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-be-yourself/202010/5-ways-deal-passive-aggressive-people

 

That is a perfect description of my childhood in the Church!

President Spencer W. Kimball said, "anger is a thought sin.”

Brother Burton C. Kelly expounded on this concept in a 1980 Ensign article, saying, “anger against others is a result of sin, or unrighteous thinking.”  He continues, “from a gospel framework, our goal is not just constructive release of anger, but the elimination of anger.”

Quote

 

Some say it is not a sin if the anger is controlled properly. However, Church leaders strongly encourage members to avoid anger.

https://www.ldsliving.com/is-anger-a-sin-insights-from-church-leaders-and-the-scriptures/s/89009

 

This type of stuff is still evident in the culture in recent times: 

Quote

Find ways to reprogram your mind and heart so that anger has no place in your soul. 
https://latterdaysaintmag.com/the-problem-with-anger-even-when-it-feels-justified/

Be nice, don't rock the boat, anger is bad.  I can't tell you how many church lessons I have had on this stuff.  I distinctly remember having a lesson on the evil of anger after my mission. 
 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by pogi

[pogi]

For an example of how out of control the teaching and culture has become (1998):

Quote

 

The Lord expects us to make the choice not to become angry.

Nor can becoming angry be justified. In Matthew 5, verse 22, the Lord says: “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment” (emphasis added). How interesting that the phrase “without a cause” is not found in the inspired Joseph Smith Translation (see Matt. 5:24), nor in the 3 Nephi 12:22 version. When the Lord eliminates the phrase “without a cause,” He leaves us without an excuse. “But this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away” (3 Ne. 11:30). We can “do away” with anger, for He has so taught and commanded us.

Anger is a yielding to Satan’s influence by surrendering our self-control.

Understanding the connection between agency and anger is the first step in eliminating it from our lives. We can choose not to become angry. And we can make that choice today, right now: “I will never become angry again.” Ponder this resolution.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1998/04/agency-and-anger?lang=eng

 

This kind of stuff makes feeling or expressing anger taboo in our culture, which makes it all that more uncomfortable when it arises, leading to fear of conflict, suppression, avoidance, which all leads to festering internal anger and passive aggressive behavior.  I am not surprised by the results of the study TBH. 

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by pogi

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

True, but my main point was that his style was not "conflict avoidance" in nature.

Agreed.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

For an example of how out of control the teaching and culture has become (1998):

This kind of stuff makes feeling or expressing anger taboo in our culture, which makes it all that more uncomfortable when it arises, leading to fear of conflict, suppression, avoidance, which all leads to festering internal anger and passive aggressive behavior.  I am not surprised by the results of the study TBH. 

 

Anger and “pride” have been misrepresented in our circles IMO. 

[pogi]

Thinking about this topic, this song came to mind which triggered a deep emotion of sadness tinged with anger that I wasn't expecting:

"If you chance to meet a frown, do not let it stay.  Quickly turn it upside down and smile that frown away."

"No one likes a frowning face.  Change it for a smile.  Make the world a better place by smiling all the while."

I feel compassion for my inner child that internalized that song.  I honestly am still suffering from that culture and all the other teachings about anger. 

 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by pogi

[CV75]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

How do we know it is that rare?  I think everyone uses this behavior to some extent.   

I think he uses the terms interchangeably because conflict avoidance is passive aggressive behavior. 

And my favorite:

 

Why it shows up so much in Mormon culture (at least from my observation) might be explained below:

That is a perfect description of my childhood in the Church!

President Spencer W. Kimball said, "anger is a thought sin.”

Brother Burton C. Kelly expounded on this concept in a 1980 Ensign article, saying, “anger against others is a result of sin, or unrighteous thinking.”  He continues, “from a gospel framework, our goal is not just constructive release of anger, but the elimination of anger.”

This type of stuff is still evident in the culture in recent times: 

Be nice, don't rock the boat, anger is bad.  I can't tell you how many church lessons I have had on this stuff.  I distinctly remember having a lesson on the evil of anger after my mission. 
 

Of course, “extent” changes the significance of any term and action, but in this OP’s case the “extent” refers to a disproportionally large behavioral abnormality (his term) among a specific population. This is why I asked if there was a better study to share, beyond what was "interesting and entertaining" in other ways.

Defining one term does not define another (you focused on defining passive aggressive and extrapolated that to conflict avoidance, as the OP did). Passive aggressive people avoid conflict using identifiable behaviors while others avoid it using other behaviors. This is why I asked if there was a better study to share, beyond what was "interesting and entertaining." 

Some will say that conflict avoidance is passive aggressive behavior and vice versa, depending on their argument and personal narrative. Others like me will point out that they are two different things. All sorts of websites to choose from, including your links to the LDS Living and LDS Magazine articles (where the context for anger is not conflict; the word is not mentioned) and the popular psychology magazines (where the context or anger is conflict).  This is why I asked if there was a better study to share, beyond what was "interesting and entertaining."

Population studies on this topic would be very different from personal observations based on our personal experience with anger, conflict, and managing either.

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Anger and “pride” have been misrepresented in our circles IMO. 

Anger and pride cause people to misinterpret and mismanage lots of things, no matter how they may be represented. The OP, in my opinion, is about how they are managed within a certain population, and I would like to see a better study to share.

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Of course, “extent” changes the significance of any term and action, but in this OP’s case the “extent” refers to a disproportionally large behavioral abnormality (his term) among a specific population. This is why I asked if there was a better study to share, beyond what was "interesting and entertaining" in other ways.

Defining one term does not define another (you focused on defining passive aggressive and extrapolated that to conflict avoidance, as the OP did). Passive aggressive people avoid conflict using identifiable behaviors while others avoid it using other behaviors. This is why I asked if there was a better study to share, beyond what was "interesting and entertaining." 

Some will say that conflict avoidance is passive aggressive behavior and vice versa, depending on their argument and personal narrative. Others like me will point out that they are two different things. All sorts of websites to choose from, including your links to the LDS Living and LDS Magazine articles (where the context for anger is not conflict; the word is not mentioned) and the popular psychology magazines (where the context or anger is conflict).  This is why I asked if there was a better study to share, beyond what was "interesting and entertaining."

Population studies on this topic would be very different from personal observations based on our personal experience with anger, conflict, and managing either.

FWIW my personal feeling is that these results are a direct consequence of our teachings and culture in our church that I have already highlighted.   

It’s almost a predictable outcome that many would be affected:

“Along the way, most people who are passive-aggressive learned that it’s not okay to be angry or upset. Maybe they were taught that conflict is threatening and has to be avoided at all costs. Maybe they were taught that being “nice” and not rocking the boat is the only option.”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-be-yourself/202010/5-ways-deal-passive-aggressive-people

 

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by pogi

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

Thinking about this topic, this song came to mind which triggered a deep emotion of sadness tinged with anger that I wasn't expecting:

"If you chance to meet a frown, do not let it stay.  Quickly turn it upside down and smile that frown away."

"No one likes a frowning face.  Change it for a smile.  Make the world a better place by smiling all the while."

I feel compassion for my inner child that internalized that song.  I honestly am still suffering from that culture and all the other teachings about anger. 

 

 

[Calm]

12 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I do believe our culture has encouraged conflict avoidance overall.  IMO. 
 

Remember the prophet (was it president Benson) who claimed he and his wife had never had an argument? 
 

No thank you.  In my mind, that just means someone is probably getting their own way a lot. 

Our temple sealer said something about never going to bed angry/upset.  That only works if you have a partner that opens up.  Strong, silent types don’t generally resolve things quickly.

[Calm]

17 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

Stevens' goes on to cite what he sees as examples of conflict-avoidant behavior seen in the larger LDS population and suggests reasons why this passive-aggression may be prevalent among church members.

My husband’s family (father grew up in Southern Utah, mom was Australian, kids were Orem) would not deal with negatives, to the point of ignoring when someone was having a meltdown (adult)….as in stop talking while they stomped up the stairs and out the door yelling at whatever got them frustrated and then started talking again as if nothing had happened.  It was bizarre.  It has been very hard to get my husband to open up about what is bothering him.  He says he just doesn’t think about it, but I can see distinct changes in his behaviour when he is upset…and on occasion after 40 years of marriage and ease/drag it out of him.

But one of the reasons I married him was he was very positive and never criticized me where in my family we interacted mostly by helping each other solve our personal problems whether they want our help or not.

The dad was passive aggressive, he grew up with an ultra strict mom from what I hear who raised him on her own as his dad died before he was born (heart birth defect, quite young).  His expression of love was from a textbook to a great extent (he was a psych professor and I could tell what techniques he was using because I was studying them).  He was trying hard.  But he would try to shut down his more verbal wife by just telling her over and over he loved her instead of recognizing what she was mad about.  If my husband had done that to me, I might have hit him, lol.

It wasn’t Utah that came up with “love means you never have to say you are sorry” or “love conquers all” though.

Edited August 25, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

and is only one (rare, I believe)

I wish.

[Calm]

15 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

The author uses the terms interchangeably. See the table in the article and note that he uses the term "passive-aggression" several times when referring to the "Avoid" column. Further note that he notes several passive-aggressive behaviors that are avoidant in nature:

and, 

 

I think this is highly problematic myself.  I think they can be very different. 

Edited August 25, 2023 by Calm