9.2: Interpersonal Conflict Defined

Key Concepts in Interpersonal Conflict

Chris and Michelle are a married couple with young children. Chris would like to move from California to Texas to raise their children, for job opportunities, and to afford a home. Michelle does not want to leave Southern California, her family and close friends, and her rewarding job. To add to the stress, Michelle’s parents are pressuring her to stay in California. Chris and Michelle are experiencing what is known as interpersonal conflict. Interpersonal conflict occurs when two or more interdependent parties perceive and experience a struggle over incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals (Hocker & Wilmot, 2018). Here is a breakdown of some of the key concepts in the definition.

• Interdependence: Interpersonal conflict occurs in part because individuals are connected and depend on one another. In the example, as a married couple with children, Chris and Michelle are very invested in their relationship, with very integrated lives.
• Incompatible goals: Each of us has goals for our relationships, our identity, and ourselves. Sometimes our goals do not match up with the goals of others, and this can create a conflict. In the example, Chris’s goal was to move to Texas, whereas Michelle’s goal was to stay in California.
• Scarce resources: Resources are commodities such as money, time, relationships, and affection. If we believe there are not enough resources available (such as money), this can create conflict. In the case of Michelle and Chris, there are a variety of resources at stake, such as relationships with families and friends, future employment, and housing.
• Interference from others: Interference from others can come from any outsider who gets in the way of your relationship. Marriage and family therapists have long noted that in-laws are among the top sources of conflict and divorce for couples. Whether it is a mother-in-law interfering with your decision-making, or a brother-in-law who is constantly borrowing money, it can create stress and frustration for a relationship. In the example, Michelle’s parents are pressuring her to stay in California.

Now that we have identified some common causes of conflict, can you recognize some of the conflicts you have experienced with friends, family, and romantic partners? In addition to causes of conflict, factors such as culture, gender, and even social media add a layer to how we experience and negotiate conflict.

Conflict and Culture

Laura, who is Japanese Hawaiian, and Steve, who is Italian, have been married for more than 40 years. They often reflect on how bringing their diverse cultures together has enriched their lives, but not without a few bumps in the road along the way. Over the years, they have observed that their cultural differences shape how they negotiate issues ranging from food (Italian vs. Japanese Hawaiian), child-rearing, religion, and family expectations. They are not alone. According to the Pew Research Center, as of 2019, roughly 1 in 5 marriages in the United States were interracial (Parker & Barroso, 2021). With the increasing diversity in our society, you will likely have friends, neighbors, co-workers, romantic partners, and family members from culturally different groups. While increasing interaction between diverse individuals enhances our lives in many ways, it can add an important layer to conflict exchanges, and that is how our culture shapes the way we negotiate conflict. In this section, we will look at how culture plays a part in our conflict experiences, by examining face negotiation theory, cultural background, and situational factors.

Have you ever heard someone say, “I need to save face?” In the United States, face-saving generally refers to an individual recovering from embarrassment, a put-down, or a public disappointment. However, the concept of face takes on a different meaning when we examine it from a lens of conflict and culture. Face refers to the favorable social impression we would like to present during social interactions (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). For example, you might want the people in your life to see you as a caring family member, a trusting friend, a good student, and as funny and adventurous. The concept of face is at the heart of face-negotiation theory, which provides a useful way to understand the relationships between culture and conflict (Ting-Toomey, 1988). The theory suggests that we use communication to maintain and negotiate our face and that culture influences the way we handle conflict because of our face concerns, cultural background, and situational factors. These three factors interact to shape how we communicate about conflict.

Take a moment to pause and reflect: How do you want other people to see you? The impression you would like to make on others is known as our face concerns. Face concerns are the social impression you would like to make on others and are tied into your identity. Take for example when you meet a romantic partner's family for the first time. It is likely that you would like to make a positive impression on the family and hope that they will like you for who you are. We have two face concerns: self-face and other-face. Self-face is when we focus on maintaining the image we project to others, and other-face is when we focus on protecting the image and feelings of others. Your face concerns are in turn shaped by your cultural background.

Your cultural background is shaped by your family's cultural heritage, ethnic identity, and cultural values, such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high- and low-context communication styles (Hofstede, 2001). In individualistic, low-context cultures like that of the United States, where people tend to prefer individuality, autonomy, and care for themselves and their immediate family, people are more likely to feel comfortable disagreeing openly and communicating directly about conflict. In collectivistic, high-context cultures like those in China and Mexico, where people tend to put group needs before individual needs in exchange for loyalty, and expect their in-groups will take care of them, people may be more likely to use indirect messages, avoidance, and accommodation. Low- and high-context communication, which is covered in detail in Chapter 8, Section 8.3, refers to the degree to which cultures prefer direct, explicit messages or indirect, implicit messages (Hall, 1976). For example, research across different cultures, including those in China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, and the United States, found that participants’ levels of individualism/collectivism directly impacted their conflict styles, with collectivists preferring integrating and compromising approaches and individualists relying on more competing and dominating styles (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001).

Situational factors include the roles you play (daughter/son, boyfriend/girlfriend, employee/boss), your status, your communication preferences, and cultural norms and rules that guide your behavior. To illustrate, cultures have different beliefs about how power should be shared amongst the people in the culture, known as power distance (Hofstede, 2001). In low-power-distance cultures, such as the United States, power is supposed to be distributed equally, meaning that the culture tries to diminish the differences between low- and high-status individuals. In high-power-distance cultures, it is accepted that power is distributed unequally, thus people in high-status positions are afforded special treatment and privilege. For example, in the United States, it is considered appropriate for college students to question and at times challenge their professors. In high-power-distance cultures, such as in China, it is considered inappropriate and disrespectful for a student to question a professor, even if the professor has made an error. Differences in perceptions of status and power will influence how, why, and with whom we choose to initiate conflict.

Saving Face in Conflict

It is important to understand that conflict is viewed differently across cultures. Consider what you recall from Chapter 8 on how low- and high-context cultures and communication shape our interpersonal relationships. See for example this YouTube video on “The Importance of Face in China,” which explores the idea that winning a conflict isn’t seen as positive in all cultures. In the video, Rupert Munton talks about a situation that involved two British engineers who were based in Beijing and their interaction with a local engineer. In this video, you will come to find out that sometimes winning an argument or being “right” will cost you.

Creative Commons Video: The Importance of 'Face' in China - Rupert Munton - ClarkMorgan Insights - YouTube – accessible with closed-captioning and transcript included.

Discussion Questions

1. Reflecting on your culture, how do you view conflict? Is conflict good? Is it bad?
2. When you are in conflict, what is your main goal?
3. What does "saving face" mean to you?
4. Do you try to save face during the conflict, or save the group’s face?
5. Do you adjust your conflict management style when working cross-culturally?
6. What is one main takeaway from the video that you can apply in school, at work, or in your social life?

Gender Communication and Conflict

In 1992, psychologist John Gray published the book Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus. This runaway bestseller was based on the idea that not only are people different genders, but we are from completely different planets in terms of our problem-solving communication. The truth of the matter is a little more nuanced, with research showing that while there may be some differences, there are likely more similarities in how people handle conflict (Cupach et al., 2010). In fact, most of the research on gender differences and conflict management has shown weak or inconsistent results.

Researchers have long tried to establish a link between biological sex, gender roles, and approaches to managing conflict. One large study of more than 6,000 men and women in the workplace, spanning 40 years, demonstrated that women were more likely to use other-face conflict management strategies in order to maintain relationships, and men were more likely to use self-face strategies that are competitive in nature (Rahim & Katz, 2019). Other researchers have argued that gender identity roles (the degree to which one identifies as stereotypically feminine or masculine) are a better predictor than biological sex of conflict approaches. One study of gender role identity and conflict found that individuals who identified as masculine showed a preference for a dominating approach, whereas individuals who identified as feminine were highest on avoiding, and individuals who identified as androgynous preferred an integrating style (Brewer et al., 2002). What is clear is that more research is needed to examine some of the subtle variations in conflict style that are related to gender roles and identity.

Most observations regarding interpersonal conflict and gender differences are likely due to our cultural beliefs and stereotypes, not differences based on gender or sex. Although early research on gender differences in conflict tried to draw conclusions based on biological sex, recent research shows that how you communicate during conflict is more likely a result of factors such as your family upbringing, societal expectations, and cultural background. To illustrate, in Nila’s family, she and her sister are constantly told to be nice and play fair when they have arguments, but their brothers are told to take their problems outside and that “boys will be boys.” If you grew up in a family with other children, you may have witnessed firsthand that your family expected different behavior from your siblings based on their gender. Yet, in other families, children may have been raised without strict gender norms. These expectations set us up to communicate with people based on our stereotypes of their sex or gender, which can influence how we handle conflict. Contrary to sex-role stereotypes about conflict within interpersonal relationships, women have been shown to be more assertive and openly address conflict, whereas men have been shown to be more likely to withdraw. However, as our knowledge about gender and sex-role identities continues to evolve, it is clear that it is difficult to draw conclusions about conflict behavior based solely on gender.

As we can see, the research findings on conflict and gender are mixed, and likely other factors shape how you handle conflicts, such as your age, unique family dynamics, cultural background, stereotypes, and the topic of conflict. It is important to be aware of sex-role stereotypes and how they shape our responses to other people. We need to take the time to get to know people so that we can adjust our communication to the individual, and not just the stereotypes we hold regarding their gender, culture, age, and other traits. Take some time to reflect on how gender stereotypes regarding conflict play out in your life. Have you ever been in a situation where you made judgments about someone’s ability to manage conflict based on their biological sex or gender identity? Have you ever been in a situation where you felt someone else stereotyped you due to culturally based gender role expectations?

Digital Communication and Conflict

With the invention of the internet, cell phones, and social media, the world experienced a revolution through the creation of new computer-mediated communication channels. These technological innovations have had a profound impact on communication, changing how we date (Match.com, Plenty of Fish, Bumble), how we communicate with our friends (Snapchat), how we share hobbies (i.e. Twitch for gaming), and how we communicate at work (Zoom). It was inevitable that these innovations would also impact how we experience and negotiate interpersonal conflict. Digital forms of communication, whether e-mail, texting, or using an app like Snapchat, have become sources of conflict, changed how we handle conflict, and contributed to problematic conflict behaviors.

Digital mediated communication has become a source of conflict for people. To illustrate, the Pew Research Center (Lenhart et al., 2020) found that among coupled adults in the United States (married, cohabiting, or in a committed relationship), approximately half (51%) say that cell phones can be a cause of conflict because their partners are distracted by their cell phone while they are trying to have a conversation with them. Not only can the amount of time spent on cell phones be a source of conflict, but also can social media. “Teens, technology, and friendships” (ibid.) reports that 31% of social media users have fought with a friend over something that occurred online or through a text message. Social media has been shown to promote conflict in romantic relationships by increasing jealousy, suspicion, negative social comparisons, and online opportunities for infidelity (Clayton et al., 2013). Part of the challenge is that the use of computer-mediated communication, whether texting, emailing, or tweeting, is accompanied by a loss of important communication cues, such as tone of voice and micro-facial expressions. “Seeing a frown, a shaking head, a sigh, a bored expression, and many other subtle and not so subtle signs of disapproval or indifference can inhibit what people are willing to express” (Suler, 2004, p. 322). When negotiating conflict online, whether through email or social media, there is often a loss of immediate feedback. In addition, media platforms promote negative social comparisons and can serve as a distraction in face-to-face interactions.

Have you ever tried to settle an argument on social media? Or have you ever tried to negotiate a conflict through a text message? If so, you are not alone. Changes in social media and technology dependence have provided people with new options for responding to conflicts. For example, we have witnessed the birth of “call-out culture.” Call-out culture refers to using social media to confront someone publicly. One call-out technique is flaming, a hostile and aggressive online interaction that involves directing insulting messages at another person. Online communication has a disinhibition effect, which means that people feel safe saying things online and through digital media that they would rarely say to someone if they were in a face-to-face interaction. For example, in 2013 rapper Meek Mill publicly shamed a lifelong friend for asking for money by posting the entire exchange on Instagram. Airing grievances and making personal attacks such as this in public online settings may make the attacker feel as though there is a veil of protection but, in reality, public shaming can heighten the hurt of the conflict. If you have a conflict that does not go well, you have other options that are not available in face-to-face conversations, such as blocking the other person, leaving their messages unread, or copying and sharing messages for feedback from others. Research has shown that 60% of all teens report taking an action like unfriending, blocking, or deleting photos of a former friend (Lenhart et al., 2020).

Addressing interpersonal conflicts through digital communication media may provide some protection for freely sharing your feelings on difficult issues without facing immediate criticism, nonetheless, as with face-to-face communication, we should make every effort to practice mindful communication skills when negotiating conflict in a digital world.

Before calling someone out through social media, consider these tips:

1. If you are going to send a harshly worded email, text, or post, consider having a trusted friend review the message first.
2. Take some time to pause and cool down before sending critical or combative messages.
3. Ask yourself how you would feel if you were on the receiving end of the message.
4. Regarding personal relationships with friends, family members, or romantic partners, although digital forms of communication provide some protection when delivering critical messages, make every effort to try and resolve relational conflict in a setting that allows for real-time feedback, such as face-to-face, via video calls, or through a phone call.