14 DAY TRIAL // According to Arizona State University (ASU) doctoral student in clinical psychology Danielle Roubinov, people who prove to be more flexible while handling conflicts of interests are often more likely to become more frustrated and angry with the argument than the individuals they are speaking to. The conclusion has become obvious following a series of scientific experiments, in which some 65 students engaged in conversations with research assistants. The topics were carefully selected so that the situation would become tense.
While it is still recommended to generally adopt flexible attitudes when it comes to resolving a conflict or settling a dispute, the ASU study seems to point out that it may not be wise to do so when the argument is very strong, and no other way out is possible. That is to say, in those circumstances, persons who leave their flexible attitudes may be better off than those who don't, as the latter will become more frustrated and stressed following the discussions.
“We categorized the verbal responses of participants during the task into seven types of negotiation strategies, including problem-solving and aggressive/threatening. Individuals who used a smaller set of strategies were considered less 'flexible' than those who used a greater variety of strategies,” Roubinov explained.
“Our results indicated that greater flexibility may not be the healthiest approach. Unlike less-flexible participants, those who tried a greater variety of responses showed more intense facial expressions of anger and frustration. Cortisol levels in more flexible participants also reflected an unhealthier biological response to stress than the less flexible participants,” she added, saying that cortisol was commonly referred to as the stress hormone.
“Although being flexible in how you respond to different situations may be beneficial, continuously trying different ways to work out the same situation may lead to greater anger, frustration, and an unhealthier biological response,” the study concluded.