Individual Behaviors

The specific behaviors examined in studies of relational conflict are myriad (see Sillars & Canary, 2013). However, scholars frequently conceptualize the various behaviors in terms of two dimensions.

Negativity and Positivity. Scholars fre­quently conceptualize conflict behav­iors having positive and negative affect along a single dimension, but most coding systems distinguish between behaviors that are viewed as cooperative and those that are seen as competitive. Researchers using Sillars’s (1986) Verbal Tactics Coding Scheme or similar measures, for example, usually make separate assessments of integrative and dis­tributive strategies, which are viewed as hav­ing positive and negative affect, respectively (e.g., Canary & Cupach, 1988). Similarly, coding schemes that incorporate nonverbal assessments (e.g., Gottman, 1994; Matthews, Wickrama, & Conger, 1996) typically include categories of positivity (i.e., expressions of warm or positive affect) and negativity (i.e., expressions of hostile or negative affect).

Numerous studies have shown that nega­tivity and similar constructs are associated inversely with concurrent relational satisfac­tion (Fincham & Beach, 1999; Robinson & Jacobson, 1987). This association has been found with a variety of different methods, including observations of laboratory con­flict discussions (Campbell, Martin, & Ward, 2008; Levenson & Gottman, 1983), retro­spective reports of relational conflict (Birchler & Webb, 1977), and daily diary ratings of negative behaviors that are associated with conflict (Caughlin, Huston, & Houts, 2000; Huston & Vangelisti, 1991).

There are a few studies suggesting “rever­sal effects” (Fincham & Beach, 1999, p. 52), in which some form of negativity is associ­ated concurrently with dissatisfaction but predicts increases in satisfaction (e.g., Heavey et al., 1995; Heavey, Layne, & Christensen, 1993). However, such effects generally have not been confirmed in attempted replications (Fincham & Beach, 1999), and due to ambi­guities in the analyses, the reversal effects may reflect extremely unhappy couples becoming somewhat less unhappy—rather than couples becoming satisfied due to negativity (Caughlin, 2002). McNulty and Russell’s (2010) recent study showing that negative behaviors can be associated with stable satisfaction when problems are severe is consistent with this interpretation because they also found that couples who were relatively unhappy as new­lyweds tended to report severe conflicts and high negativity early in marriage. In short, negativity seems more likely to be an indica­tor of a stable but unhappy relationship than a predictor of an improving one.

Compared with the findings pertaining to negativity, the connection between expres­sions of positive affect during conflict and satisfaction is more muted. In some studies, it is difficult to determine whether expres­sions of positive affection matter because the researchers combine positive and nega­tive affect into a single score (e.g., Matthews et al., 1996). There are some studies suggest­ing that positivity during conflict matters; for instance, affiliative humor is related to relational satisfaction (Campbell et al., 2008). Still, negativity is a more consistent and powerful predictor of relational satisfaction than is positivity (Gottman, 1994; Huston & Vangelisti, 1991).

Engagement Versus Avoidance. There is a cultural bias in the United States against avoiding conflict (Parks, 1982), and some scholars are so accepting of this bias that they consider withdrawal to be a form of negativity (e.g., Lindahl, Clements, & Markman, 1998).

L. Smith, Heaven, & Ciarrochi, 2008).

However, this overall inverse association is modified by a number of factors, including the three discussed here. First, the form of con­flict avoidance matters. Roberts (2000) and Sillars and Canary (2013) argued that there are qualitatively different forms of conflict avoidance, with some forms being more hostile and other forms being more neutral or coop­erative. Roberts found that conflict avoidance that included negative affect was related more consistently to marital dissatisfaction than was neutral avoidance. Also, conflict avoidance can vary in directness (e.g., Caughlin, Hardesty, & Middleton, 2012; Caughlin & Scott, 2010). In some cases, relational partners seem able to negotiate the avoidance of a potential conflict topic in a way that does not draw attention to the conflict avoidance, which diminishes the chances that it will elicit dissatisfaction (Caughlin et al., 2012).

Second, conflict avoidance is most likely to be successful if it is used selectively, as in cases when the issue is not considered important (Roloff & Wright, 2009). McNulty and Russell’s (2010) longitudinal study sug­gests that when topics are trivial, the harm of engaging in negative conflict behaviors may be particularly acute; thus, avoiding is probably preferable to overt negativity when the conflict is not severe. Finally, individuals may be unlikely to find conflict avoidance dissatisfying if they choose to avoid with­out excessive pressure to do so (Roloff & Wright, 2009). When people feel forced to avoid topics in general, they find this particu­larly dissatisfying (Caughlin & Afifi, 2004; Donovan-Kicken & Caughlin, 2010), and this probably extends to avoiding topics during conflicts. Consistent with this proposition, Afifi et al. (2009) found that avoiding due to fears of negative consequences for discuss­ing an issue was related to dissatisfaction in dating couples.