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.

Psychological studies have shown that about half of negotiators lie when they have a motive and opportunity to do so. With this in mind, it's risky to assume one can tell when a negotiator is lying since most studies demonstrate the success rate at detecting lies is about the same as a 50-50 coin toss. 

As a mediator, I accept the fact that people in conflict don't always tell the truth and that I can’t determine if they are or not. Knowing this, I encourage parties to acknowledge they disagree and then focus on the future. For example, consider a business owner and a former employee in conflict over whether the employee violated a non-compete clause after leaving the company. The employer claimed to have evidence to prove the agreement not to compete was breached. The former employee claimed to have evidence this was not the case. And I had no way to determine if the parties were being completely truthful, nor was that part of my role as mediator.

I would say it appeared both parties were making statements beyond what evidence they had. They seemed to both be “overstating” their claims. They could engage in extended litigation that would cost them lost clients and revenue. Or they could negotiate a new, more precise, agreement to not compete.

After agreeing their existing agreement was, at best, ambiguous, they chose to negotiate a new agreement and the issue as to who was being “truthful” became a non-starter.