DO WE ALL ARGUE THE SAME WAY?

While there has been a great deal written about resolving conflicts, there hasn’t been as much written about how we argue, particularly regarding individuals of different cultural backgrounds.

Many studies have focused on Israel-Palestinian negotiations. One, for example, compared the Arabic style of “musayra,” composed of repetition, indirectness, elaboration, and affectiveness, with the Israeli style of “dugri,” which can be described as “straight speech.” Other studies suggest that Arabs may have a preference for musayra, but are flexible as well as direct and assertive when the situation demands it.

One study by Chrysi Rapanta and Dale Hample compared interpersonal arguing styles in the United Arab Emirates to China, India and the United States. Their analysis showed that United Arab Emirates nationals tend to find less reason to argue with each other in comparison to citizens in other countries studied. When they do argue, it is rarely because they need to prove their dominance, but more likely for maintaining their power rather than obtaining more of it.

United Arab Emirates nationals give greater attention to how conflict situations may impact personal or professional relationships and trust. The research suggests this is due to traditional Arab cultural values of strong family and community commitments combined with the collectivistic cultural values of loyalty and honesty. Emiratis do not avoid being involved in an argument, but are careful and aware of the possible relationship gain or loss from a dispute.

Can we draw any conclusions from these studies? They do confirm a generalization that’s long been accepted: that conflict occurs in relationships and how parties value the relationship influences how they argue, even what they argue about.

Comparatively, societies with weak family and community bonds may be more argumentative for the purpose of gaining individual power.