Explanations of Conflict and Conflict Behaviors
Much of the work relevant to explaining conflict in romantic relationships does not refer to explicit theoretical models (Fincham & Beach, 1999), but several common explanations exist, including the ones that refer to skills, gender differences, other individual differences, stressors, and goals.
Each of these explanations has a number of variants, but we focus on general themes rather than the variations.Skills
One of the most common accounts of why couples engage in communication behaviors that are associated with dissatisfaction is a skills-based one (e.g., Clements et al., 1997). The skills metaphor is implied in the behavioral models of conflict that have been the dominant perspective on marital conflict (Fincham & Beach, 1999). The assumed connection between skills and conflict behaviors is so pervasive that many scholars treat the phrases “conflict skills” and “conflict behaviors” synonymously (e.g., McNulty & Karney, 2004).
Despite the ongoing pervasiveness of the skills explanation, the role of communication skills as a cause of aversive relational conflict behaviors may be overstated (Canary, 2003). Burleson and Denton (1997) argued that the skills deficiency approach fails to make the important conceptual distinction between ability and motivation. Burleson and Denton conducted a study in which they measured skills directly. They found that communication skills were not reliably associated with marital distress, but expressions of negativity were. Such findings suggest that the behaviors frequently linked to dissatisfaction in relationships “may result more from ill will than poor skill” (p. 897).
Gender Differences
Many explanations of conflict behaviors involve research on gender differences. Two types of gender differences are potentially important: differences in men and women’s proclivities for enacting particular behaviors and differences between men and women in the associations between conflict and other constructs.
Beginning with differences in behaviors, women in heterosexual dyads, as compared with their partners, exhibit more negativity (Kelley et al., 1978; Messman & Mikesell, 2000). Men tend to be more likely than women to avoid conflict (Denton, Burleson, Hobbs, Von Stein, & Rodriguez, 2001; Kelley et al., 1978). Not surprisingly, woman-demand/man-withdraw occurs more frequently than does man-demand/woman- withdraw (Caughlin & Vangelisti, 1999).Although less commonly studied than simple behavioral frequencies, there are also sex differences in the covariances between conflict behaviors and other constructs. Du Rocher Schudlich, Papp, and Cummings (2004), for example, reported that husbands’ depression was more strongly associated with negativity than was wives’ depression. Also, Kluwer, Tumewu, and Van Den Bos (2009) found that women overall were more adversely affected by perceived unfairness during conflicts.
Researchers have explained gender differences in a number of ways. One set of explanations involves enduring differences in male versus female dispositions. Some scholars have suggested that compared with men, women are socialized to focus more on relationships, which explains why women tend to approach conflicts more while men avoid them (e.g., Napier, 1978). Another set of explanations focuses on the social structure or the power structure of heterosexual relationships, particularly marriages (see Eldridge & Christensen, 2002). A social structural model suggests that men’s greater power relative to women in heterosexual relationships means that relationships tend to favor men’s wishes. Women, as a consequence, often are put in a position of advocating change while men resist (Heyman, Hunt-Martorano, Malik, & Smith Slep, 2009). A related view posits that gender differences are modified by the nature of specific conflicts; for instance, the usual gender difference in demand/withdraw is evident in discussions of women’s complaints but less so during discussions of topics that are more symmetrical in terms of who has complaints (Kluwer, Heesink, & Van de Vliert, 2000; cf.
Caughlin & Vangelisti, 1999). Similarly, when husbands desire more change on an issue than do wives, the tendency for wives to demand more often than do husbands reverses (Klinetob & Smith, 1996).Circumstances in which usual gender patterns are reversed highlight arguments that sex differences in conflict behaviors are often exaggerated (Canary et al., 1995). Effect sizes for gender differences tend to be small, and even where there are significant sex differences, there also are similarities; for example, even though Messman and Mikesell (2000) found that women in dating dyads engaged in more distributive tactics than did men, both women and men engaged in more integrative tactics than distributive ones. Such findings are not surprising given that male and female communicators in relationships are often more similar than they are different (e.g., Vangelisti & Daly, 1997).
Despite the evidence that gender differences in conflict sometimes are exaggerated, researchers often inadvertently perpetuate stereotypes about men and women. For example, some researchers have failed to analyze conflict behaviors that run counter to stereotypes (e.g., husbands demanding and wives withdrawing), even though attending to such behaviors can be theoretically important (see Caughlin, 2002). In the case of demand/with- draw, the pattern with wives demanding and husbands withdrawing is more common, but a substantial minority of couples fall into a pattern of husbands demanding and wives withdrawing (Denton et al., 2001). Furthermore, husband-demand/wife-withdraw is associated with consequential outcomes like relational dissatisfaction (Caughlin & Huston, 2002; Heavey et al., 1995) and relational violence (Eldridge & Christensen, 2002).
Individual Differences
The largest group of studies examining individual differences (other than sex) has linked attachment styles or dimensions to conflict behaviors (Feeney et al., 2000). According to attachment theory, experiences with important others are internalized so that individuals develop various working models or attachment orientations (Feeney et al., 2000).
Individuals with secure attachment orientations (i.e., they feel comfortable in relationships) are more likely than people with other attachment styles to enact conflict behaviors such as compromises, validation, and other behaviors that are usually considered constructive (Domingue & Mollen, 2009). An avoidant orientation (i.e., the extent to which one is uncomfortable with closeness and finds it difficult to depend on others) has been linked to low levels of warmth and supportiveness (Feeney et al., 2000; Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996) and high levels of negativity (Creasey, Kershaw, & Boston, 1999). Finally, anxious-ambivalent orientations (which involve strong desires for closeness with fears of rejection) have also been linked to negativity and to dominating and coercive tactics (Creasey et al., 1999; Simpson et al., 1996). Although attachment orientations are typically conceptualized as having an enduring influence on relationships and behaviors in those relationships, there is evidence that the association between conflict and attachment is reciprocal. Ruvolo, Fabin, and Ruvolo (2001) found that the extent to which women reported avoiding conflicts with their dating partner was significantly related to declines in attachment security over a 5-month period.Consistent with attachment theory’s tenet that individuals’ views of current relationships are rooted in prior important relationships, individuals’ conduct during conflict is related to how they view their family of origin. Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2002) studied college students’ perceptions of their family of origin and their reports of conflict behaviors in current romantic relationships. Having a family of origin with a conformity orientation (i.e., one that stressed homogeneous attitudes, harmony, and obedience) was associated with avoiding conflicts and with negative behaviors during conflicts. Also, reports of parental violence or divorce in the family of origin are associated with negativity during engaged couples’ conflicts (Chen et al., 2006; Halford, Sanders, & Behrens, 2000).
Such studies suggest that experiences in one’s family of origin have an enduring impact on how one engages in conflict.Also, a number of personality constructs are associated with conflict behaviors. The Big Five personality factor of agreeableness, which refers to qualities such as being likable and good natured, is related inversely to coercive conflict tactics and expressions of negative affect (Graziano & Tobin, 2002), is related negatively to demand/withdraw in marriage (Caughlin & Vangelisti, 2000), and is associated positively with affectively positive strategies like affirmations and appeasements (Gonzaga, Keltner, Londahl, & Smith, 2001). The Big Five neuroticism factor, which refers to qualities like proneness to anxiety and negative moods, is correlated positively with aggression, negativity, and demand/withdraw (Caughlin et al., 2000; Caughlin & Vangelisti, 2000; Hines & Saudino, 2008).
Stress
There is growing interest linking romantic partners’ experiences of stressful circumstances to conflict. For example, marital conflict is linked to stress at work (Schulz et al., 2004), stress about money and bills (Papp, Cummings, & Goeke-Morey, 2009), and poor economic conditions (Conger, Rueter, & Elder, 1999). Moreover, when spouses engage in conflict while they are already experiencing stress, they are more likely to become physically aggressive than they are at other times (Frye & Karney, 2006).
Goals
The notion that one’s goals are associated with relational conflict has a long history (e.g., Lewin, 1948), but the role of goals in conflict is often implicit. Prevalent explanations for the demand/withdraw pattern are a good example of how references to goals are often implied (Caughlin & Scott, 2010). Gender differences in demanding and withdrawing are often attributed to women wanting change while men favor the status quo (Heyman et al., 2009). Although the term goal usually is not used explicitly (cf. Kluwer, 1998), the clear implication is that conflict behaviors are related to individuals’ goal.
Explicit discussions of goals in relational conflict suggest that multiple goals are relevant in conflict episodes (Canary, 2003; Fincham & Beach, 1999; Keck & Samp, 2007). Although there is no single correct way to classify such goals, common types of goals include (a) instrumental or content goals, such as what outcomes or resources are desired; (b) relational goals, such as the desire to maintain or change a particular quality of a relationship; (c) identity goals, including desires to portray oneself in a positive manner and to allow one’s partner to maintain a positive identity; and (d) process goals, including the desired manner of conflict management (Canary, 2003; Fincham & Beach, 1999).
The relative importance of various goals can shift during an episode (Fincham & Beach, 1999; Keck & Samp, 2007); for instance, identity issues may emerge during interaction. A disagreement that begins with both spouses trying to determine how to find their destination after getting lost can shift to one in which spouses are concerned primarily with protecting their own identities by blaming each other. Based on such examples, Fincham and Beach (1999) suggested that one useful intervention would be to counsel romantic partners to recognize when a shift to identity issues is likely so that they can pay attention to more positive goals.
A multiple goals perspective on conflict has some advantages over the more common behavioral models of conflict (Caughlin, 2010). First, considering multiple goals provides an opportunity for a theoretically grounded notion of communication skills in conflicts. As noted above, many relational conflict scholars equate expressions of negativity with a lack of skill, regardless of individuals’ goals (cf. Burleson & Denton, 1997). In contrast, a multiple goals perspective might define skills in terms of the ability to attend to multiple goals simultaneously or in terms of the ability to reframe the situation so that the various goals are more compatible (Caughlin, 2010).
Second, considering multiple goals can provide a more complete account of conflict behaviors than do studies that only implicitly refer to goals. Consider, for instance, the account of demand/withdraw that attributes avoidance to the goal of maintaining the status quo and demanding to the goal of changing the partner (Kluwer, 1998). Such claims about a one-to-one association between a goal and a behavior cannot explain when a person has that goal but does not enact the associated behavior; for example, not all people wanting change demand (Caughlin & Scott, 2010). If, in addition to desiring change, individuals are also committed to pursuing positive relational goals and to maintaining positive identities, they may forego the affectively negative strategy of demanding and instead not raise the issue or try to raise it in the most positive and constructive manner possible. This is just one example, but it illustrates how a multiple goals perspective can be useful at providing a more thorough account of conflict behaviors than do standard accounts.