The Theoretical Framework of Conflict Resolution
Conflict resolution refers to the process of constructively working through the disagreements, conflicting interests, and clashes of values that arise in interpersonal relationships. In 1974, Thomas and Kilmann classified styles of handling conflict along two dimensions and identified five resulting styles. The first dimension is assertiveness, meaning the degree to which a person attempts to satisfy their own needs. The second is cooperativeness, meaning the degree to which a person attempts to satisfy the needs of the other party. Competing is high in assertiveness and low in cooperativeness, and it consists of pushing one's own position through. Collaborating is high on both dimensions and consists of searching for a solution that satisfies the needs of both parties. Compromising is moderate on both and consists of each party conceding part of what they wanted. Avoiding is low on both and consists of postponing the issue rather than engaging with it. Accommodating is low in assertiveness and high in cooperativeness, and it consists of giving priority to the other party's needs. In the abstract, collaborating is the most constructive of the five, since it is the only style that does not require either party to give something up permanently. The appropriate style nevertheless varies with the situation, and treating collaboration as universally correct is itself a mistake: trivial disagreements are not worth the time collaboration demands, urgent decisions may require competing, and issues that will resolve themselves are reasonably avoided. The value of the framework lies less in ranking the styles than in making visible which one a person defaults to regardless of circumstance.
Patterns of Conflict Resolution in Couples
Research on couples has repeatedly shown that patterns of conflict resolution strongly predict both the quality and the stability of a relationship, often more strongly than the content of what couples argue about. According to Gottman's work, stable couples use what he calls a gentle start-up when raising a difficult subject, respond to their partner's attempts at repair rather than brushing them aside, and retain the ability to take a break before either person is overtaken by emotional flooding. Unstable couples, by contrast, open the conversation with a harsh start-up, employ the Four Horsemen, and allow negative interaction to escalate until the original issue has been lost entirely. One of the most consequential findings from this research is that Gottman found 69% of problems in a relationship to be perpetual problems, which cannot be fully resolved but can be managed through continuing dialogue. These are the differences rooted in personality, family background, and core values, and they recur throughout the life of a relationship in different guises. The practical implication is that the goal of conflict resolution is frequently not the elimination of the problem but the establishment of a way of living alongside it. Couples who understand this are less likely to interpret the reappearance of an old disagreement as evidence that the relationship has failed, and are therefore better able to keep the conversation about the problem going rather than abandoning it as hopeless.
Conflict Resolution Styles, Personality, and Compatibility
Conflict resolution styles are closely linked to the Big Five personality traits. People high in agreeableness prefer accommodating and compromising styles, while those low in agreeableness lean toward competing. People high in extraversion assert themselves readily and tend to adopt competing or collaborating styles, both of which require active engagement in the exchange. People high in neuroticism react emotionally, which makes constructive conflict resolution harder to sustain because arousal interferes with the deliberation that collaboration requires. People high in conscientiousness tend to approach problems systematically, working through them in an organized way rather than reacting to whatever is most salient. For couple compatibility, the combination of the two partners' styles is extremely important, and it matters more than either style considered alone. When both partners use a collaborating style the result is the most constructive, since both are willing to invest the effort a joint solution requires. When one competes while the other avoids, the pair easily falls into the demand-withdraw pattern, in which the pursuing partner presses harder as the withdrawing partner retreats further, and each behavior provokes the other. Looking back at one recent argument and placing each partner separately on the five styles often explains why the exchange went nowhere. If the demand-withdraw combination sounds familiar, two small changes are enough to test on the next occasion: the pursuing partner stops following the other into the next room, and the withdrawing partner names a time to come back and talk instead of leaving in silence. The styles themselves sit close to personality and rarely shift quickly, but where the loop they produce gets interrupted is open to choice.