Opposites attract—or at least, they often do. There’s something inherently thrilling about being drawn to a partner whose strengths and perspectives differ from your own.
In good times, this can create a wonderful sense of balance in a relationship where each person’s traits complement the other’s. However, when conflict arises, that balance can feel more like teetering seesaw. These differences, which once seemed charming and complementary, are now obstacles.
Here’s why these differences become apparent during conflict, and how they can be overcome.
Differences In ‘Cognitive Styles’
When one person thrives on verbalizing thoughts and brainstorming out loud while the other needs quiet time to think before responding, it can feel nearly impossible to meet in the middle. This isn’t to say that one method is better than the other — they’re simply different. But when it comes to problem-solving, they can clash in ways that feel deeply personal.
What’s happening here is a classic case of conflicting “cognitive styles.” According to research from Psychological Bulletin, cognitive styles refer to the different ways in which individuals prefer to process incoming information. The preference for verbalization over rumination is just one of many ways in which clashes in cognition can manifest. As 2016 research from Personality and Individual Differences explains, cognitive styles fall on a broad spectrum:
- Impulsivity vs. reflectivity. This cognitive style captures how quickly and thoughtfully a person makes decisions. Impulsive thinkers favor speed over accuracy—often making snap decisions without much deliberation and embracing risk-taking. Reflective thinkers, by contrast, take their time to carefully consider options. They prioritize accuracy and thoroughness over speed. For instance, when deciding on a major purchase like a new gadget, an impulsive thinker might buy on impulse based on excitement, while a reflective thinker would spend time researching, comparing models and weighing pros and cons before making a decision.
- Field dependence vs. independence. This cognitive style reflects how much an individual relies on external versus internal cues when processing information. Field-dependent thinkers are guided by external cues and tend to see things holistically; they also excel in collaborative and social environments. However, they may struggle to identify individual elements within a complex whole. In contrast, field-independent thinkers are guided by internal cues and excel at analyzing parts of a whole independently of context. They tend to break down complex tasks efficiently and prefer working autonomously. For example, when solving a puzzle, a field-dependent thinker might focus on how each piece fits into the overall image—while a field-independent thinker might examine the individual shapes and colors to figure out logical connections.
- Narrow vs. wide range of equivalence. This dimension represents how narrowly or broadly a person categorizes or groups similar objects and ideas. Individuals with a narrow range of equivalence make fine distinctions between similar items; they categorize them very specifically. For instance, when organizing books, they might separate them by genre, author and even subgenre. Conversely, those with a wide range of equivalence group a broader variety of items into fewer, more generalized categories — they’d likely lump all fiction and non-fiction novels together without further differentiation.
- Flexibility vs. rigidity of cognitive control. This style highlights how adaptable or fixed a person’s thinking is when faced with new information or changing circumstances. Flexible thinkers are adept at shifting perspectives and trying new approaches, and they’re always open to new ideas. Rigid thinkers, on the other hand, tend to maintain a consistent way of thinking; they find it challenging to adapt to changes or think outside their pre-established patterns. For example, when encountering an obstacle at work, a flexible thinker might brainstorm alternative solutions. A rigid thinker would rather stick to the original plan, despite its impracticality.
- Concrete vs. abstract conceptualization. This style distinguishes between practical, fact-based thinking and theoretical, idea-driven thinking. Concrete thinkers focus on tangible details and practical applications; they prefer hands-on experiences and real-world examples. Abstract thinkers, on the other hand, prefer delving into ideas and concepts through theoretical discussions and hypothetical scenarios. For example, when discussing the concept of “freedom,” a concrete thinker might focus on basic human rights—while an abstract thinker might favor philosophical perspectives on autonomy, or even existentialism.
- Tolerance vs. intolerance of unrealistic experience. This dimension reflects a person’s comfort level with imaginative, hypothetical or fantastical concepts. Those who are tolerant of unrealistic experiences enjoy speculative ideas, imaginative storytelling and abstract thinking. On the other hand, those who are intolerant of unrealistic experiences prefer realism and logic; they’re less interested or comfortable with whimsy or hypothetical scenarios. For example, when watching a science fiction movie, someone with high tolerance might be captivated by imaginative worlds and futuristic ideas, whereas someone with low tolerance might feel frustrated by the lack of realism and dismiss it as implausible.
When Opposites Clash
Imagine, for instance, an impulsive and a reflective processor attempting to work through a problem in their relationship. The impulsive partner’s initial reaction is to immediately start talking about it. They air out every thought, every possible outcome and every feeling that comes to mind in the hopes that talking it out will lead to a solution.
Verbalization, in their minds, is like untangling a knot — each word they speak helps to loosen it a bit more. For them, silence can feel stagnant or even frustrating because they feel stuck without the ability to work through their emotions out loud. When conflict arises, they may feel a sense of urgency to “fix” things right away by discussing every angle out loud.
Their reflective processing partner, on the other hand, prefers to stay quiet. They make sense of their thoughts and feelings through quiet introspection. They prefer to mentally sift through their ideas, examine how they feel about them and arrive at some degree of clarity before sharing their perspective. Talking before they’re ready can feel uncomfortable or even disingenuous, as they haven’t yet formed a coherent stance.
Before long, frustration builds. The impulsive processor feels ignored or abandoned, as they feel as though they’ve been left to do all the mental and emotional labor on their own. Meanwhile, the reflective processor feels overwhelmed and even resentful, as all they want is some time and space to think — without being bombarded by a flood of words and feelings.
Instead of working together toward a solution, they’ve gotten stuck in a pattern where neither of their cognitive needs are being met.
How To Meet Halfway
As 2019 research from Personality and Individual Differences explains, clashes in cognitive processing can make constructive communication markedly difficult during conflict in romantic relationships.
When one partner senses that their way of thinking is inherently incompatible with the other’s, they may feel dismissed, unheard or even stupid for processing information in a way that feels natural to them. In this way, bridging the gap between these styles is essential:
- For slower, reflective, analytical thinkers. Make a conscious effort to stay verbally engaged during conversations. Even if you’re processing information internally, remember to ask questions, acknowledge what your partner is saying and validate their feelings as they go. This reassures them that you’re actively listening — even if you’re not speaking as much as they are.
- For faster, impulsive, intuitive thinkers. Be mindful not to overwhelm your partner with too much information at once. Practice patience, and try not to let anxiety or fear take over if your partner remains quiet for a moment. Remember, silence doesn’t mean they’re ignoring you or that they lack thoughts or feelings; it simply means they’re taking the time to give you the thoughtful consideration that you rightly deserve.
Are “cognitive clashes” common in your relationship? Take this science-backed test, and find out if it’s cause for concern: Relationship Satisfaction Scale
