3 Ways To Use The 'Balance Theory' To Better Your Relationship

What's the best way to maintain equilibrium in a relationship, especially after a conflict? Psychological research holds the answer.

By Mark Travers, Ph.D. | December 18, 2024

Conflict is a natural part of any relationship. Whether it's a minor disagreement about what to watch on TV or a heated debate over personal values, these moments of discord can leave us feeling uneasy.

According to Fritz Heider's classic "balance theory," this discomfort likely stems from a deep-seated need for consistency and alignment in relationships. People crave harmony in their attitudes and values, and when inconsistency arises, it can disrupt the equilibrium we strive to maintain with those we care about.

A study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships this November examined how people tend to react to such inconsistency in relationships.

When faced with differences, individuals are likely to respond in one of three ways—by conforming and agreeing with the other person, seeking their validation or distancing themselves altogether. These strategies reveal a lot about how we protect both our relationships and our sense of self.

Here are the three ways people try to balance inconsistency in relationships, and what drives them, according to the study.

1. Conforming

Conforming involves adjusting your own beliefs or behaviors to align with someone else's. While this might sound like "giving in," it's often a subconscious attempt to preserve the relationship. Researchers suggest that when people perceive their own beliefs or identity as flexible, they are more likely to conform to avoid conflict.

For instance, imagine you're starting a new job and discover that your team has a strong preference for a collaborative work style, while you've always preferred working independently. You might find yourself adapting to the group's approach, not because you've abandoned your preference, but because you want to fit in and maintain harmony.

Researchers suggest that this approach reflects the "chameleon effect," where individuals unconsciously mimic others to foster connection, especially when interacting with someone new.

However, conforming is less likely if the belief in question is core to your identity. For instance, it's unlikely you'd change your stance on a deeply held moral value, such as being pro-life or pro-choice, just to match someone else's perspective.

In fact, researchers found that cross-culturally, conformity is the least preferred response, as it's often not a satisfactory resolution and may still strain the relationship long-term.

2. Seeking Validation

Seeking validation is another way people resolve relationship conflict. Instead of adjusting their beliefs, individuals advocate for their perspective and attempt to sway others to see things their way. This is particularly common when someone's identity or opinion feels fixed, but they perceive their relationship as worth preserving.

Consider a couple debating the merits of adopting a vegan lifestyle. One partner, a passionate environmentalist, may present research, share personal stories and seek affirmation from their significant other, who is a dedicated meat-eater. This approach isn't just about "winning" the argument—it's about aligning values to maintain relational harmony.

Interestingly, validation-seeking doesn't always involve direct confrontation. People might turn to third parties—friends, family or even social media—to affirm their stance. This external validation can ease the discomfort of inconsistency in relationships and provide further confidence to navigate the disagreement.

3. Distancing Oneself

When neither conformity nor validation feels viable, some individuals opt to distance themselves from the source of conflict.

"By reframing the closeness, and thus importance, of a relationship one may be able to reduce their dissonance. Distancing may range from extreme measures (e.g., irrevocable severing of the relationship) to a much milder response (e.g., temporary limiting of communication)," the researchers explain.

For instance, imagine discovering that a distant relative holds political views that clash with your own. If the relationship isn't close, you might avoid discussing politics altogether or limit interactions during family gatherings. On the other hand, if the disagreement involves a close friend, distancing could feel more complex. You might step back temporarily, hoping the tension resolves itself over time.

Distancing is more common when people view relationships as highly "mobile" or replaceable. In cultures or social contexts where relationships are perceived as less fluid, distancing is less frequent, as the stakes of losing a connection are higher.

Understanding these strategies helps us recognize how we respond to relationship conflict and why. Each approach has its place and can be adaptive—or possibly damaging—depending on the context.

For instance, conforming may work well in fleeting or low-stakes disagreements, such as adapting to a friend's taste in music on a short road trip, but not for a serious, long-term relationship issue such as a disagreement over having kids.

Similarly, seeking validation may be necessary for greater alignment on values, but can also drive people away if they feel forced to conform to you. Distancing may also protect your emotional well-being in relationships that feel unsalvageable or even harmful to be in, but can be unhelpful in conflicts that could deeply benefit from even a single, albeit uncomfortable, conversation.

Additionally, researchers highlight an unexpected benefit of inconsistency in relationships: it can challenge us to reexamine our beliefs and attitudes, leaving us more open to diverse perspectives. This is why, when approached with curiosity, conflict can reveal blind spots in our beliefs and even strengthen our connections with others.

"Imagine an individual has a single negative interaction with a new colleague. They make internal attributions and assume this colleague is a rude person. If they then find this perspective is inconsistent with all their other colleagues, they may feel inconsistency and thus shift this belief. To do so, they may instead presume instead an external attribution (e.g., perhaps their colleague was having a bad day)," the researchers explain.

Conflict doesn't have to signal the end of a relationship. Instead, it offers a powerful opportunity for growth. The key is to evaluate what matters most—your values, your relationship or both—and choose the response that aligns with your deepest priorities.

Are you prone to distancing yourself in relationships? Take this test to learn more: Avoidant Attachment Scale

A similar version of this article can also be found on Forbes.com, here.