As of mid-July this year, the airlines had reported over 3,400 incidents of “unruly passengers” to the Federal Aviation Administration. Such incidents include passengers refusing to wear masks throughout the Covid-19 pandemic; a passenger who spat on other passengers after being asked to put on a mask; and a passenger being duct-taped to a seat after trying to open the plane’s door midflight. Others refuse to use headsets, sharing their music with fellow passengers, whether they like it or not. While others feel compelled to make their political beliefs aggressively known, such as one who loudly harassed Senator Mitt Romney on a flight with cries of “traitor.”

 And it’s just not in the air that anger is expressed. Even in pre-Covid days, the American Automobile Association reported a survey that revealing 56% of drivers purposely tailgated, 47% yelled at another driver, 45% beeped to show anger, 33% make angry gestures and 24% purposely tried to block another driver from changing lanes.

A BBC report attributed at least some of air and road rage to the Covid pandemic mental-health legacy. We are carrying the stress of the pandemic onto planes, into our cars and just about everywhere we go. And the target of our rage just happens to be the nearest person.

People who study conflict identify these behaviors as non-realistic conflict, that is, conflict that results from one party’s need to release tension. Think of road rage: the act of an aggressive or angry driver who may make threatening gestures, shouts verbal insults and drive in a threatening manner. The angry driver has no relationship with other drivers on the road, so the behavior is an end in itself, primarily a response to frustrations in which others appear suitable targets for a release of frustrations. And the target could easily change because there is no relationship between the parties.

Are air rage and road rage unique to the United States? Of course not, but there are cultural differences in how anger is expressed and handled by others. Anthropologists have studied nonviolent cultures scattered around the world. The Toraja people of Indonesia have a very low rate of expressed anger as well as a very low rate of violence and crime. The religious and cultural values of the Toraja place an emphasis on social harmony, cooperation, patience and acceptance. Anger is feared because it may cause social disintegration of their community.

The Toraja try to accept the setbacks of life by not dwelling on them. When conflicts do happen, they remind themselves of the physical and emotional dangers of anger and how expressing the emotion makes one look bad in others’ eyes. But when the Toraja do experience anger, they conceal all outward aspects of it. Overt displays of anger are considered shameful and met with ridicule. The Toraja refuse to speak with one another while angry. The Toraja ignore anger in others in consideration for the person’s physical and mental health. When he or she has cooled down, bystanders assist in a reconciliation with those with whom they were angry. Grudges are not allowed to remain. 

Are there things we can learn from the Toraja? Coincidentally, many of the recommendations by the American Automobile Association aliugn with the Toraja culture: When confronted with an angry driver, don’t engage the person, avoid eye contact, which can be seen as a challenge. And, most importantly, don’t get angry yourself or take the other person’s anger personally.

“Winning” an argument with an angry person isn’t worth the risk to personal safety and the safety of others. The pandemic has put most people under incredible stress and some will express it with anger during situations, which would not have bothered them otherwise. We need to learn from the Toraja because increased stress will surely be with us for awhile.

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.