3.4 Conflict Styles

Every couple fights. The question isn’t whether you’ll have conflict—it’s how you’ll handle it.

Research has found that how couples argue predicts relationship outcomes better than what they argue about or how often they argue. Your conflict style isn’t just about disagreements—it’s a window into how you’ll navigate every challenge your relationship faces.

Here’s what decades of research reveals.

Gottman’s Four Horsemen: The Predictors of Doom

John Gottman’s research on married couples is famous for a reason: he can predict divorce with 93% accuracy based on observing a single conflict conversation.^[1]

The four communication patterns that predict relationship failure:

1. Criticism

Complaints target behavior: “You forgot to call the plumber.”

Criticism targets character: “You never follow through on anything. You’re so unreliable.”

The difference matters. Complaints are specific and actionable. Criticism attacks who your partner is as a person.

2. Defensiveness

The natural response to criticism—and almost always counterproductive. Defensiveness is really counter-attack: “I forgot because you dumped a million other things on me.”

Defensiveness says: the problem is you, not me. It blocks any possibility of resolution.

3. Contempt

The single strongest predictor of divorce.^[1]

Contempt is criticism from a position of superiority: eye-rolling, mockery, sneering, sarcasm, hostile humor. It communicates disgust and disrespect.

Research shows contempt is particularly destructive in the first six years of marriage. Couples characterized by contempt even have weaker immune systems.

4. Stonewalling

Emotional withdrawal. Checking out. Physically present but mentally gone. Often a response to feeling flooded by conflict.

Stonewalling feels like abandonment to the other partner. It escalates rather than resolves conflict.

When all four are present regularly, the relationship is in serious trouble. But even one—especially contempt—signals danger.

The Demand-Withdraw Pattern

Beyond the Four Horsemen, research has identified another destructive pattern: demand-withdraw.^[2]

One partner presses for discussion, change, or resolution (demand). The other partner avoids, withdraws, or shuts down (withdraw). This creates a pursuing-distancing cycle that escalates over time.

A comprehensive review established demand-withdraw as one of the most destructive interaction patterns, associated with:^[3]

Relationship dissolution
Intimate partner violence
Poorer physical and mental health

The pattern crosses cultures. Research across heterosexual and same-sex couples, and across different countries, found demand-withdraw is universal—not a Western phenomenon.^[4]

It’s Not Just Gender

Earlier research suggested women demand while men withdraw. But more nuanced studies found the pattern depends on who wants change:^[5]

Wife-demand/husband-withdraw is more common when discussing the wife’s issues
The pattern reverses when discussing the husband’s issues
It’s about whose agenda is on the table, not just gender

Both directions predict negative emotions, destructive tactics, and lower conflict resolution.^[6]

Conflict Resolution Styles

Research identifies several distinct styles people use to handle conflict:^[7]

Integrating (Collaboration)

High concern for self AND high concern for other. Seeks solutions that satisfy both parties. “How can we both get what we need?”

Obliging (Accommodation)

Low concern for self, high concern for other. Yields to partner’s preferences. “Whatever makes you happy.”

Dominating (Competition)

High concern for self, low concern for other. Pursues own goals at partner’s expense. “I’m going to win this.”

Avoiding

Low concern for self AND low concern for other. Sidesteps or postpones conflict. “Let’s not talk about this.”

Compromising

Moderate concern for both. Seeks middle ground where both give something up. “Let’s meet in the middle.”

Research shows integrating (collaboration) produces the best outcomes for relationship satisfaction—but requires more skill and energy than other styles.^[7]

The EVLN Model: Responses to Dissatisfaction

When something goes wrong in a relationship, people respond in one of four ways:^[8]

Response	Active/Passive	Constructive/Destructive
Exit	Active	Destructive
Voice	Active	Constructive
Loyalty	Passive	Constructive
Neglect	Passive	Destructive

Exit: Threatening to leave, actually leaving, or ending the relationship
Voice: Discussing problems, seeking solutions, suggesting changes
Loyalty: Waiting and hoping things improve, giving partner benefit of doubt
Neglect: Ignoring partner, spending less time together, letting things fall apart

Voice offers the best opportunity for resolving conflict. Exit and neglect tend to destroy relationships. Passive loyalty can work short-term but doesn’t address underlying issues.

Constructive vs. Destructive Conflict

Research tracking couples over 16 years found that destructive conflict behaviors in Year 1 predicted higher divorce rates years later.^[9]

Destructive behaviors:

Yelling, screaming
Insults and name-calling
Contempt and mockery
Stonewalling and withdrawal
Bringing up old grievances

Constructive behaviors:

Calm discussion
Listening to understand
Acknowledging partner’s perspective
Problem-solving together
Taking breaks when flooded, then returning

The research found wives decreased destructive behaviors over time, while husbands remained more stable—suggesting women may adapt more to improve conflict patterns.

Attachment and Conflict

Your attachment style shapes how you handle conflict:^[10]

Anxiously attached individuals:

Perceive relationships more negatively after conflict
Display strong stress and anxiety during disagreements
May escalate to keep partner engaged

Avoidantly attached individuals:

Rated as less warm and supportive during conflict
Withdraw rather than engage
May minimize problems to avoid discussion

Attachment anxiety is a particularly potent predictor of criticism, defensiveness, contempt, and stonewalling—explaining 22% of variance in these behaviors beyond relationship satisfaction.^[11]

Attributions: The Stories We Tell

How you interpret your partner’s behavior during conflict matters enormously.

Research shows dissatisfied spouses make attributions that cast partner behavior in negative light:^[12]

“They forgot because they don’t care about me” (vs. “They were stressed”)
“They’re being defensive because they’re guilty” (vs. “They feel attacked”)
“They always do this” (vs. “This is unusual for them”)

These negative attributions create a feedback loop: you interpret behavior negatively, respond negatively, elicit negative behavior, which confirms your interpretation.

Maladaptive attributions relate to less effective problem-solving and more negative behavior during conflict.^[13]

The Counterintuitive Finding

Here’s something surprising from research: disagreement and anger exchanges predicted improvement in marital satisfaction longitudinally—despite relating to concurrent unhappiness.^[14]

Three patterns were dysfunctional for long-term satisfaction:

Defensiveness
Stubbornness
Withdrawal

But engaging in conflict—even with some anger—was better than avoiding it entirely.

The implication: suppressing conflict to maintain surface harmony may backfire. Couples need to address issues, even uncomfortably, rather than letting resentment build.

What Predicts Conflict Success

A landmark review of 115 longitudinal studies identified patterns in how couples handle conflict:^[15]

Successful patterns:

Accepting influence from each other
Compromising without resentment
Finding areas of agreement within disagreement
Respecting differences that can’t be resolved
De-escalating when things get heated

Unsuccessful patterns:

High-intensity negative affect (contempt, belligerence)
Escalation rather than de-escalation
Requiring your partner to change their position entirely
Treating every disagreement as win/lose

Repair Attempts: The Secret Weapon

Gottman’s research found that what distinguishes happy couples isn’t the absence of conflict—it’s their ability to repair.^[1]

Repair attempts are any effort to de-escalate tension:

Humor (not sarcastic)
Affection (“I love you even when we fight”)
Acknowledgment (“You have a point”)
Taking responsibility (“I was wrong about that”)
Asking for a break (“I need 20 minutes to calm down”)

In happy relationships, repair attempts are received and accepted. In unhappy relationships, they’re ignored or rejected.

The ratio matters too: stable relationships maintain roughly 5 positive interactions for every negative one during conflict.^[1]

Assessing Your Conflict Style

Consider your patterns:

When your partner does something that bothers you, do you:

Bring it up directly? (Voice)
Wait and hope it changes? (Loyalty)
Pull away emotionally? (Neglect)
Consider leaving? (Exit)

During disagreements, do you tend to:

Criticize your partner’s character or complain about behavior?
Get defensive or take responsibility?
Show contempt or maintain respect?
Shut down or stay engaged?

When you feel hurt, do you:

Interpret it as evidence they don’t care?
Consider other explanations?
Attack back or express your feelings?

Your honest answers reveal patterns that research shows predict relationship outcomes.

The Bottom Line

Research is unambiguous: how you fight matters more than what you fight about or how often you fight.

The couples who last aren’t the ones who never conflict. They’re the ones who:

Avoid the Four Horsemen, especially contempt
Break the demand-withdraw cycle
Use voice rather than exit, neglect, or passive loyalty
Make and accept repair attempts
Maintain a 5:1 positive-to-negative ratio
Give each other the benefit of the doubt in attributions

Conflict style isn’t fixed. These are learnable skills. But they need to be learned—ideally before your conflict patterns become entrenched.

The best predictor of how someone will fight with you is how they’ve fought in previous relationships. Pay attention early.

References

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221-233. PubMed
Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 73-81. PubMed
Eldridge, K. A., & Christensen, A. (2002). Demand-withdraw communication during couple conflict: A review and analysis. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Understanding Marriage (pp. 289-322). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge
Christensen, A., Eldridge, K., Catta-Preta, A., Lim, V. Y., & Santagata, R. (2006). Cross-cultural consistency of the demand-withdraw interaction pattern in couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1029-1044. Wiley
Heavey, C. L., Layne, C., & Christensen, A. (1993). Gender and conflict structure in marital interaction: A replication and extension. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 16-27. APA
Papp, L. M., Kouros, C. D., & Cummings, E. M. (2009). Demand-withdraw patterns in marital conflict in the home. Personal Relationships, 16(2), 285-300. PubMed
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 368-376. AoM
Rusbult, C. E., Zembrodt, I. M., & Gunn, L. K. (1982). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1230-1242. APA
Birditt, K. S., Brown, E., Orbuch, T. L., & McIlvane, J. M. (2010). Marital conflict behaviors and implications for divorce over 16 years. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1188-1204. PubMed
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5), 899-914. PubMed
Brassard, A., Lussier, Y., & Shaver, P. R. (2009). Attachment, perceived conflict, and couple satisfaction: Test of a mediational dyadic model. Family Relations, 58(5), 634-646. Wiley
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 3-33. PubMed
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Attributions and behavior in marital interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 613-628. PubMed
Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(1), 47-52. PubMed
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3-34. APA