201854459 Agor, Stephanie Kate A.

201854458 Bautista, Sofia Lee Marie F.

201854442 Parayno, Althea Maria Socorro A.

201854443 Zipagan, Paulo Luis S.

04 July 2018

Sabi Ko, Sabi Niya​: A Study on Communication Styles during Conflict Resolution
between Genders in Filipino Intimate Relationships

Introduction
Social relationships, whether platonic, familial or intimate, are characterised by the dynamics of
implicit bargaining processes where emotions, intentions and preferences are communicated. Conflict
emerges when these processes fail as a consequence of the gaps within translation, interpretation and
action (or lack thereof) between partners. Likewise, as similar bargains are made within the course of
conflict emergence and escalation, the outcomes of these bargains determine how resolution occurs,
proceeds and directs future conflict settlement.
While it can be argued that the roots and resolution of conflict are universal - that is, general
miscommunication and compromise - the specific styles of communication with which it is approached
and settled may vary according to household and social environment, cultural nuances, and/or gender. For
conflict resolution within romantic relationships, a large volume of current literature focuses on
differences between genders (e.g. Tannen 1990; Bailey 2009; Drobnick 2017), which are mainly
employed in the United States, in contrast with that of the Philippines. Moreover, in spite of emerging
works that involve the observation of non-heterosexual relationships (e.g. Kintanar 2013), there is still a
demand for research that is inclusive between genders in different types of relationships.
In this study, we attempt to examine the distinctions between genders in various types of
romantic relationships (i.e. female - male, female - female, male - male) in terms of communication styles
during conflict resolution within the Philippine context. To do this, we employed a focus group discussion
(FGD) along with an online survey to inquire on linguistic patterns of respondents when addressing
conflict, across various ages, who are currently in relationships.
In order to proceed, we briefly review existing literature on communication styles and gendered
differences between them and Filipino romantic relationships within the context of settling conflict, as
well as the communication accommodation theory, Then, we discuss the components of the focus group
discussion (FGD) and the survey questionnaire as modes of data collection. Next, we discuss and examine
our findings vis-a-vis their relation to the Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT). Further, we
present our personal views regarding our results. Lastly, we summarize our findings as well as provide
possible recommendations for future research.

Review of Related Literature

Conflict resolution in relationships
Holtgraves and Taylor (2014) explores the role of language in both conflict and conflict
resolution. The authors examine the relationship between a person’s goals and expectations to the
outcome of the conflict. Competition and cooperation was also discussed wherein the former is
characterized by selfishness and uses “justifications, irrelevant arguments, personal attacks, excessive
demands, and threats (Giebels & Noelanders, 2004; Olekalns & Smith, 2003 as cited by Holtgraves &
Taylor, 2014), while the latter is characterized by the promotion of resolution through “counter proposals,
agreements, expressions of confidence in the other’s ability, and humor” (Donohue & Roberto, 1996;
Putnam & Jones, 1982 as cited by Holtgraves & Taylor, 2014). Furthermore, the authors discussed how
the speaker’s motivational goals affect language use. De Dreu, Beersma, Steinel, and van Kleef (2007) as
cited by Holtgraves and Taylor (2014) argued that a person only accommodates main details and
perceives the other person’s goals are equal to theirs. In addition, they argued that conflict triggers
competitive behavior.
The authors also discussed the cylindrical structure of language in conflict. It is composed of (i)
avoidant orientation, (ii) a linear relationship among avoidance, competitive, and cooperative behavior,
(iii) identity, relational, and instrumental goals, and (iv) explanations of various forms of language.
Firstly, avoidant orientation, sees people in arguments or conflict to behave inactively or are in a
withdrawal behavior. Secondly, the linear relationship among avoidance, competitive, and cooperative
behavior suggests that for avoidance to result into cooperation, it must go through competition. The third
dimension, identity, relational, and instrumental orientations, explains how people choose or adapt to one
of the said goals in interacting and in solving the conflict. Finally, the last dimension of the cylindrical
model discusses how one would perceive the use of language in explanations such as “an individual’s
overall orientation to the conflict will be governed in part by their social motivation (Liu & Wilson, 2011
as cited by Holtgraves & Taylor, 2014), their instrumental behavior governed by motivated information
processing (De Dreu et al., 2007 as cited by Holtgraves & Taylor, 2014), and their relational behavior by
evaluations of emotion as social information (van Kleef, 2009 as cited by Holtgraves & Taylor, 2014).”

Linguistic patterns between genders in relationships

Bailey (2009) debunked the idea that during arguments and conflict resolutions, women talk a lot
more than men. The author discussed that both sexes talk about the same amount during such situations.
Women focus more on how to connect with emotions through conversations, while men tend to focus on
directly solving the problem.
Drobnick (2017) explained different dimensions wherein women and men communicate
differently namely (i) purpose, (ii) length of conversation, (iii) listening, (iv) Focus on women, and (v)
Focus on men. For the first dimension, purpose, men think that communication needs to be purposive and
direct to the point; thus, conversing efficiently. Women, on the other hand, see the utility in
communication wherein they use it to explore and understand the situation and the other person. In terms
of how much to share, men filter relevant details and select which details to share. Women unlike men
would explore through the conversation without missing a detail. A woman shares for someone to
understand and listen to her situation and feelings. Looking into the listening dimension, men actively
listen and directly go to the point to fix whatever needs to be fixed, as mentioned previously. Women get
validation when they feel they are listened to. When women have problems, men would want to quickly
resolve their problems. Women want to be supported, understood, and nurtured when they are down. On
the other hand, when men are down, they tend to be a little secretive. A man tends to be silent and avoids
conversation with his partner. This is sometimes felt by women as failure in engaging their partner. Since
open communication is missing, women misunderstand the silence. Furthermore, the author discussed that

1
communication breaks down when men are made to feel incompetent or feel being controlled. For
women, invalidation of struggles could cause great conflict.

Filipino relationships
Traditionally, being in a Filipino intimate relationship starts with ​panliligaw or courting wherein
the man would try to win the woman’s heart. More often than not, the man would go to the woman’s
house to serenade her or ​harana. ​If the couple then decide to get married, the tradition of ​pamamanhikan
or which literally means “to go up the stairs of the house” is done. The man would go to the female’s
house and ask the parent’s for their daughter’s hand. Within the relationship, ​tampo o​ r to sulk is
inevitable. It is characterized by non-verbal ways such as silence and avoiding other people (Love,
Courtship, 2002).
Kintanar (2013) compared relationship satisfaction and conflict resolution approaches among
Filipino Gay, Lesbian, and Heterosexual Individuals in Romantic Relationships. The author found out that
there is a significant difference on conflict resolution tactics between homosexual and heterosexual
relationships. Homosexual relationships specifically gay men would have a higher tendency to use
positive conflict resolution tactics (i.e. discussing and talking about the problem, assessing the situation
constructively) than heterosexual women. Despite this, there were fundamental similarities in terms of
commitment and satisfaction as both kinds of relationships based on the results are committed and
satisfied with their relationships. However, Mertz, Rosser, & Strapko (2010) found similarities on conflict
resolution styles among homosexual and heterosexual relationships. The authors also argued that the
differences identified are generally present only on gender roles and lifestyle feature factors and
technically not on the conflict resolution itself.

Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT)

The Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) suggests that in order to communicate
effectively, people change their use of language depending on who is listening. To illustrate this, in the
Philippines, a younger person would add “po” at the end of his or her sentences when talking to an older
person to show respect and would remove it when talking to his or her peers. As such, according to CAT,
we argue that:
H: There is no significant difference in the communication styles between genders in romantic
relationships, where consideration and compromise is expected.

Methodology
Differences in gender communication in conflict and conflict resolution was agreed upon as the
focus of the study. A focus group discussion (FGD) and a survey were approved of as the major data
collection sources of the study.
A. Focus Group Discussion (FGD)
A focus group discussion, composed of eight Filipino participants was held. The objective of the
FGD was to gather common nuances and identify patterns with regards to Filipino communication during
conflict and conflict resolution in romantic relationships. Common responses and reactions were used as
options in the survey to be executed.

2
 B. Survey
A survey was distributed online and performed to assess the frequency of the most common
responses determined from the FGD. The scope of respondents of the survey included Filipinos of legal
age (18 years old and above) currently in romantic relationships. The survey included twenty-one (21)
questions divided into three major sections:
● Basic information (Gender, Age, Type of Relationship [i.e. Female-Male], Length of Relationship
[i.e. 3 years or more])
● About the Relationship (i.e. Presence and frequency of disagreements/conflict in relationship)
● About Conflict Resolution (i.e. Common behavior during conflict)
A scoring system was developed to quantify the results, making the analysis easier.

Results and Discussion

Demographic data
Appendix III summarizes questions, follow-up queries and answers discussed during the FGD.
Appendix II contains graphic representations, such as tables and charts, of the results of the online survey.
First, the online survey examined the demographic data of respondents. Figure 1 reflects the percentage of
respondents’ gender. Thirty respondents (n = 30) consisted of 56.7% (17) females, 40% (12) males and
3.3% (1) preferred not to say. Figure 1.1 depicts the ages of respondents, majority 67% (20) of which are
aged 20 and above. While all types of relationship were represented, Figure 1.3 illustrates that a larger
number, 80% (24) were in heterosexual (female-male) romantic relationships. Lastly, Figure 1.2. shows
that more than 60% (18) respondents were in long-term relationships (2 years, 3 years or more), while the
rest ranged from 0-12 months.

About the respondents’ relationships

Figures 1.4 - 1.8 in Appendix II illustrates the nature and reasons of conflict, as well as used and
preferred modes of communication within respondents’ relationships. As in Figure 1.4, most or 90% had
disagreements with their partners and “once a month” (approx. 37% of responses) was cited as the
common occurrence of conflict. From the perspective of both genders, the top three reasons for
disagreements were mood swings, lack of quality time and attention, and jealousy. However, they vary in
frequency. Figure 1.7 shows that males and females mostly used in-person conflict resolution, followed
by calling. Likewise, the respondent who preferred not to state their gender chose calling, chatting and
in-person. Similarly, in-person and calling topped the preferred mode of communication between genders
as in Figure 1.8, while the respondent who did not state their gender preferred “other” modes, as opposed
to calling, along with in-person and chatting modes.

Conflict resolution within relationships

Lastly, this section explores the duration, who confronts and apologizes first as well as common
phrases and behaviors observed during conflict resolution. Figure 1.9 shows how most female
respondents said that they confront first, in stark contrast to that of males whose answers were equally
distributed among “me”, “the other person” and “both equally.. Likewise, between males and females,
most respondents answered that equal initiative is present (“both equally”) when apologizing. Within
females, the rest of the answers were equal between “me” and “the other person”, while more males

3
apologize first instead of their partner. The respondent who preferred not to state their gender answered
that they, along with their partner, confront each other equally but they apologize first.
Next, Figure 2.1 illustrates that majority or 58.6% of respondents stated that conflict resolutions
take a maximum duration of less than a day, followed by one day with 24.1%, while the rest were
distributed within other options. With regards to common phrases said during conflict, both sexes tend to
express disappointment in their partner’s lack of understanding (“Hindi mo ko naiintindihan” / “You
don’t understand me”), and the sentiment of not being listened to (“Hindi ka naman nakikinig” / “You’re
not even listening”). The most common behaviour that both sexes do during conflict is being silent. The
next two most common behaviours for both sexes are crying and raising their voice.
When both are starting to calm down during conflict, both sexes answered that they apologize.
The next most common response for males is to express understanding (“Oo na, gets ko na” / “Okay I get
it”), while for females it is reaffirming the resolution (“Bati na tayo” / “Let’s make up”.) Lastly, with
regards to the behaviour after the conflict, both sexes have an inclination to become silent, followed by
being sweet (“lambing”).

Similarities between genders

In summary, both sexes view that the cause of most of their disagreements are mood swings, lack
of quality time and attention, and jealousy. Furthermore, the similarities in the communication styles
among genders are the frequency of apologizing first, inclination to express their disappointment in their
partner’s lack of understanding, and being silent at the height of anger.
According to our findings, the similarities that emerge within genders arise from their attempts at
compromise, as supported by the Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT). At the start of the
relationship, both might have completely different ways for resolving conflict, but it slowly converges as
one learns what works best for their respective partners. The conflicts are resolved because
misunderstandings that are expected to arise due to the inherent differences in the communication styles
of the genders mentioned by Bailey (2009) and Drobnick (2017), are minimized because both alter how
they talk and behave in order for their partners to receive their point well.

Differences between genders

Interestingly, the only apparent distinctions between genders are found within the most common
phrases and behaviors respondents use after conflict. As such, it can be inferred that these differences are
located outside of the context of resolution itself. Table 7 shows that while “sorry”, or apology ranks as
the most common phrase, females tend to assure that the conflict has been resolved (“Bati na tayo” /
“Let’s make up”), follow by the reaffirmation of understanding (“Oo na, gets ko na” / “Okay, I get it”)
with trying to end the fight (“Ayoko na, ayoko na” / “Let’s stop this”) ranks last. In contrast, next to
apologizing, males reaffirm their understanding, followed by assurance of resolution, while trying to
remember the root of conflict (“Bakit nga ba tayo nag-aaway” / “Again, why are we fighting”) ranks last.
Drobnick (2017) supports this by stating that “men actively listen and directly go to the point to fix
whatever needs to be fixed, as mentioned previously” and “women focus more on how to connect with
emotions through conversations, while men tend to focus on directly solving the problem.”
Further, Table 8 illustrates that next to becoming silent, being sweet or lambing ties with joking
around with males while physical intimacy ranked last. Similarly, females use ​lambing next to physical
intimacy, while joking ranked last. This debunks Drobnick’s findings, that “a man tends to be silent and

4
avoids conversation with his partner . . . [which] is sometimes felt by women as failure in engaging their
partner . . . [and they] misunderstand the silence,” since all genders tend to become silent after conflict. In
contrast, this supports Holtgraves and Taylor (2014) that cooperation between genders is done through
various means, including humor.
With this, in general, it can be argued that there are significantly less differences between genders
within conflict resolution in romantic relationships as opposed to similarities.

Reflection
201854459 - Stephanie A. Agor
Stereotypes exist between general communication styles between genders (not limited to males
and females, as evidenced by sub-languages such as gay lingo in Filipino). Often, these are contextualised
in specific situations, such regular conversations between parent-child, peer-peer and or romantic
partners. However, when we are personally within these interactions, we pass these stereotypes off as
norms, hardly observing whether there are actual differences between our linguistic patterns. As such,
while doing this research, I was able to realise that these stereotypes find meaning within their context,
and may either be upheld, maintained or debunked. Moreover, I realised that compromise is integral in the
maintenance of these relationships and that these compromises are expressed, aside from these gendered
stereotypes, through the specific nuances of our native languages (e.g. word choice, meaning, among
others). It is also interesting to examine the dynamics of non-heterosexual relationships, as most of the
literature have focused on heterosexual ones. Therefore, it may be myopic to observe differences within
conflict resolutions in terms of gender, and it is important that these analyses are enriched by various
factors. On the other hand, the way that these stereotypes are carefully analyzed contribute to a bigger
discourse that reconstructs mistaken perceptions about genders and may serve to improve each others’
standing within conflict resolutions (i.e. in conservative societies where women are often deemed to be of
lower status as opposed to their male partners). Lastly, while communication is inherent in relationships, a
“proper” mode of communication is impossible to generalize as it is dependent on those who utilize it.

201854458 - Sofia F. Bautista

While differences in the communicative styles between genders exist, they are the less than the
cause of conflicts as the stereotypes would suggest. These differences exist but are not something
unchangeable. They are always minimized when one tries to communicate with another because that is
the only way to understand each other and this was clearly seen in the results of our survey. Conflicts are
resolved because these differences are put aside if not completely removed to achieve compromise. In
heterosexual relationships, it could be that the woman talks they way a man would understand and the
man vice versa, which is why the fact that the results show that they talk similarly is very interesting to
me. This might imply that the way both genders understand are extremely similar and not at all different,
although this could only be examined by further research.

201854442 - Althea A. Parayno

I’ve always found communication behavior fascinating to observe. This is the first ethnographic
study I have done, and it has proven to be very interesting and insightful. I have always thought that there
was a significant distinction between communication styles of men and women, as with the common
sentiment of society. It’s always just been a fact that women are more talkative and reactive, and men the

5
opposite. Thru research in our related literature, I understood more the reasons behind this phenomena, as
well as the mechanisms behind conflict resolution in romantic relationships. The biggest takeaway I got
from this study is that argument settlement is a gamechanger. Because a person is made to compromise
and adjust to their partner, communication differences brought about by gender or sex become more
subtle and sometimes fade away. This is supported by the Communication Accommodation Theory.
Ethnographic studies on linguistic styles are relevant as they capture human behavior and put these under
a linguistic microscope for examining. Studying communication habits let us build our relationships with
a strong foundation of understanding.

201854443 - Paulo S. Zipagan

Studying about communication styles or linguistic differences between genders in an intimate
relationship helped me understand more the dynamics of a relationship, may it be familial, intimate, or
platonic. Adjusting, accommodating, and understanding the person’s standpoint, context, and situation is
ultimately a need not just to resolve conflict but also to sustain, reassure, and nurture the relationship. I do
believe that such compromise is a necessity in order to make the bond stronger. Looking into linguistic
patterns gave me a bigger outlook on how words, non-verbal cues, and behavior matter in a relationship.
Some might undermine such and consider these as mere accessories in the relationship. We have to
recognize that it is through communication in which we relate, share, and connect to our partners and such
detail should not be discredited; hence, it must be given importance. With our results, I have to agree that
there are little differences on how each gender communicate during conflict resolution mainly caused by
the compromises each have done. Ultimately, the goal of communication within relationships is to
strengthen the bond and understanding.

Conclusion
In this ethnographic study, the distinctions in terms of communication styles during conflict
resolution between genders in romantic relationships within the Philippine context was examined.
According to our findings, as collected through an FGD and an online survey, there is no significant
difference in communication styles between genders in romantic relationships. This is supported by the
Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) since partners adjust language use in order to resolve
conflict. During conflict, respondents across genders had an inclination to express disappointment in their
partner’s lack of understanding, and the sentiment of not being listened to. After, during resolution, they
tend to apologize, become silent, and be sweet (​lambing​).
Further studies may be conducted to supplement our research. First, to ensure better
representation of genders, the survey may be employed to a bigger sample size. Next, future research can
examine additional factors, such as upbringing, and education, among others, with gender. Other methods,
such as case studies, for a more in-depth analysis may also be utilised.

6
References

Bailey, S.J. (2011). Couple Relationships: Communication and Conflict Resolution. Retrieved July 2,
2018, from ​https://www.msuextension.org/health/documents/MT200917HR.pdf

Drobnick, R. (2017, July 22). 6 Ways Men & Women Communicate Differently. Retrieved July 2, 2018,
from ​https://psychcentral.com/blog/6-ways-men-and-women-communicate-differently/

Holtgraves, T. M., & Taylor, P. J. (2014). The Role of Language in Conflict and Conflict Resolution. The
Oxford Handbook of Language and Social Psychology.
doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199838639.013.012

Kintanar, N. M.. (2013). Comparing Relationship Satisfaction and Conflict Resolution Tactics of Filipino
Gay, Lesbian, and Heterosexual Individuals in Romantic Relationships . Philippine Journal of
Psychology, 46(2). Retrieved from http://ejournals.ph/form/cite.php?id=3881

“LOVE, COURTSHIP IN FILIPINO CULTURE.” Vietnam: Timeline of Events to 1974, 14 Feb. 2002,
www.seasite.niu.edu/tagalog/love.htm​.

Metz, M. E., Rosser, B. S., & Strapko, N. (1994). Differences in conflict-resolution styles among
heterosexual, gay, and lesbian couples. ​Journal of Sex Research,31​(4), 293-308.
doi:10.1080/00224499409551764