How to make any fight in your relationship work in your favour
Dorian Minors • March 28, 2014
In the 1980's, Caryl Rusbult came up with a pretty definitive model to describe how we respond to conflict. Better still, she (and her colleagues) carried out studies to test the results of these response types. Here, we're going to show you how people respond to conflict, what the best method is and why.
Basically, our response will fall somewhere on this grid. We'll either be more active or passive, more constructive or destructive. Lets talk about the different outcomes:
If your response is:
Active and Destructive (top left) - you are performing an 'exit' response. This isn't just leaving. This is attacking as well. You’ve decided that attacking is more important than the relationship because you're acting in a way that could end it.
Active and Constructive (top right) - you are performing a 'voice' response. You might be expressing anger or hurt, but it's a sign that you care. You're using it, moving through it and engaging with your partner that demonstrates you want to continue with the relationship.
Passive and Constructive (bottom right) - you're performing a 'loyalty' response. You're basically just waiting for it to blow over. Maybe your buddy/partner is under some kind of stress and you're just waiting for that to end so you can get back on the horse. You're being positive even though things aren't great.
Passive and Destructive (bottom left) - this is a 'neglect' response. You're assuming the relationship is going to end, so you just let it be. You don't try to resolve it and ignore any attempts to fix anything. You've stopped caring.
So what's the best kind of response? Well it's a mix of voice and loyalty. Both active and passive constructive behaviours are ideal. It's called accommodation (not to be confused with the Piagetian kind of accommodation). Now, don't get carried away with the term, because accommodation isn't just about giving in, sacrificing and placating your partner. No, it's about actively stopping yourself from responding destructively to your partner's nonsense. You stop your attack in it's tracks and bite your tongue. This is the loyalty response here. The you 'transform' the motivation to attack into a motivation to forgive. Basically, you say 'I may not like it, I may not believe you but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt for us'. That's the voice response. But when it's only loyalty, if we're only letting it wash over us, sometimes we go too far and our partners can take advantage of this (read: abuse). If you have to pick one, choose voice, because research shows that loyalty doesn't necessarily predict relationship happiness all by itself. Your partner never knows what's wrong and you start to lose self-esteem.
Accommodation is the best for relationship happiness, then voice. In fact, research done by Gross & John in 2003 shows that putting a positive spin on things ('this isn't the end of the world' kind of thinking) as much more adaptive than just suppressing your emotions.
Now, you're more likely to respond with accommodation if you're usually a happy pair of friends, siblings or lovers. Also, if you think that your relationship is better than the alternatives (e.g. replacing that person with someone else). If our investment is high (for example, if we have more interconnections, the thing that's more important than love), or if the relationship is very central to our lives, we're also more likely. And finally the more committed we are (i.e. marriage), and the amount of support we receive from those around us contribute to this response.
So what about exit and neglect? Well in 2000, H. Roberts had a look at about 100 couples over three years to see what sort of effect these conflict management tactics had. He (unsurprisingly) found that both have a negative impact on relationship satisfaction. He also figured out that there are three types of neglect:
- Angry withdrawal - e.g. slamming the door
- Conflict avoidance - e.g. stonewalling. Note here though, this method can be positive in the short term for those whose schemas/expectations of conflict resolution are about self-control and containment. In the long term however, it's going to be more damaging than active engagement in the conflict because it won't lead you to a resolution to your issue.
- Intimacy avoidance - e.g. not including your partner
So, whether it's your personal life, work life or family the key is to engage with the problems your are experiencing. But, also to know when to hold back. Too much of either just lines you up for the big 'goodbye'
Turning scholarship into wisdom we can use at The Armchair Collective.
More articles? View them all, or check these out: