What's Your Fighting Style?

Source: Budgeron Bach / Pexels

You’ve probably heard all about the five love languages (Chapman, 2015) and you may even know the five types of attraction. But if it’s possible to count the ways in which people show love for each other, perhaps it’s also possible to understand conflict—the ways in which people clash—in the same manner. In other words, is there a small, knowable number of styles that people resort to when they argue? The question has been studied in a number of ways, from popular to experimental to psychoanalytic. You won’t have any trouble finding a variety of answers with Google: People have divided the most common “fighting styles”—not to be confused with the 16 basic types of martial arts—into four, or five, or six, or even more. These patterns of behavior, however, come down to four main responses to interpersonal challenge: aggression, avoidance, appeasement, and alliance.

1. Aggression. I’ll start with the aggressor, whom you’ll recognize as a person whose first instinct is to argue—the one with a very short fuse, who immediately fights back and ratchets up the stakes. Aggressors come to be seen as hot-headed, sensitive, or easily triggered to anger. In the best-case scenario, they’re competitive and assertive, although they don’t easily cooperate. An aggressor may speak up impulsively and quickly resort to anger—in a frightening way, sometimes—or may even try so hard to win a fight that they’ll dispense with fairness and say things they do not mean. What an aggressor says in the heat of the moment may cause long-term damage to the bonds between friends or family. Inside, though, aggressive people may be terrified. Even if they want an argument resolved, they still must struggle with an upwelling of inner feelings that they can’t easily express. They may be exquisitely aware of their own vulnerability; they may believe, at some level, that if they do not win an argument then their internal fragility will be revealed. This creates a chronic sense of anxiety and a quick, defensive response to a perceived threat. Aggressors believe they can only win when you lose, so they try very hard to tilt any game in their direction—which gives the impression that they value their own private needs over those of a relationship.

2. Avoidance. Other people are prone to retreating at the first hint of an argument. They prefer to ignore problems, hoping they’ll go away, rather than to manage them openly; this habit may lead them to dodge potentially productive conversations. As such, they will often be seen as something less than assertive, and they can give the impression of not caring about a given issue (or the people involved). Avoiders sometimes come across to others as emotionally cold, distant, or silent. The disagreements in which they find themselves embroiled may go own simmering for years without bursting into open conflict. Avoidant people tend to project an attitude of not caring about the personal needs of others, or even about their own; continually avoiding conflicts generally results in a lose-lose outcome, in which nobody ever wins and progress is never made.

• 2a. A prominent subtype of avoidance is intellectualization—the perceived need to look for “rational” answers, or to make efforts to solve problems using “logic.” Even when winning a debate like this will deepen a conflict, intellectualizers may continue to press their points; in addition, people who insist on intellectualizing their conflicts will likely completely ignore the feelings of the people with whom they argue. Consequently, their personal style may come across as not only cold, but also arrogant.
• 2b. Another type of avoider has been called the “defector”—a person who physically disappears when conflict rears its head. They’re so non-confrontational that they prefer to leave the room entirely, or even depart from a relationship, rather than to communicate dissent. Outside, they’ll seem blank or cold as they stonewall you, fall silent, or decline to engage; inside, they may be churning with discomfort that they do not know how to express.

3. Appeasement. Not everyone made physically uncomfortable by conflict is likely to vanish at the mere hint of it; others will try to resolve conflicts as quickly as possible, even if such a resolution is premature or superficial. Appeasers do their best to accommodate anyone who challenges them, and in “rolling over” this way, may even make a significant sacrifice of their own needs in favor of promptly ending an argument. Argue with an appeaser and you will undoubtedly “win” at their expense, which may not feel terribly satisfying: Their self-sabotage can convey a lack of assertiveness or even a sense of martyrdom. Solutions reached this way may be frivolous or inappropriate, and can ultimately lead to resentment, which often produces long-term negative consequences for a relationship.

• 3a. A more useful subtype here is the compromiser—a person who seeks to resolve an issue by finding a quick and mutually acceptable solution. If everyone is partially satisfied, they seem to believe, no one really has to lose. Compromisers value your goals as much as they appear to value their own, and they will make concessions in an effort to reach results. However, in their efforts to end the conflict quickly, the adjustments made may fall short of full satisfaction. This type of participation in a conflict may well save time and will preserve the harmony in a relationship, but an outcome produced this way will fully satisfy no one.

4. Alliance. The last style of conflict tends to be the most effective. Some people prefer to find ways to cooperate rather than to reach a zero-sum solution, in order to keep their relationships healthy. These people may be able to manage their own emotional discomfort so as to avoid becoming defensive in the midst of an argument, and they can often muster their empathy at difficult times in order to see past such heated moments. Negotiating with unusually assertive, strategic, and moderate people like this means that everyone may have a chance to “win” simultaneously, even if the outcome is not realized quickly. With this type of solution, long-term relationships are prioritized, while momentary victories are not seen as important.

If you recognize your personal style of argument here, and you don’t particularly like what you see, you should remember that styles of conflict can change. With insight and patience, you can choose to modify your behavior patterns to keep your relationships healthy. And just as you can learn the “love language” of your partner, you can begin to better understand their “fighting style” as well: Perhaps you don’t have to take seriously the things they say when an argument is at its peak, or maybe you can allow your partner to spend a few minutes alone when a conversation runs the risk of becoming unproductive. No matter what, though, please remember that arguing with your partner is not unusual or abnormal, and always remember to ask yourself if it is really more important to be “right” than to be happy.