Opinion: Why Our Personality Changes Around Different People

Between every two people, there is an instinct to establish a social hierarchy

Photo byAndrea Piacquadio on Pexels

To answer the question posed in the title in full, I’d have to delve into a number of different facets. However, this article will only focus on one: what I’m calling the “two-person hierarchy.” To limit ourselves to that topic alone, I’ll use the paragraph to follow to quickly summarize the other two factors that cause us to show different faces depending on who we’re interacting with.

One large way our personality changes from person to person is simply from concealment. We’re more private, more inhibited around people we don’t know well. I discussed this in a comprehensive way in another article, “Why ‘Small Talk’ Has Big Consequences.” The second reason is incentives. We act a certain way with our professional colleagues or clients because we’re being paid to, so we’re motivated to maintain the facade in order to keep our jobs. We might try to present ourselves in the best light possible on a first date, or when meeting the parents of the person we’re seeing, because we want to make a good impression for the sake of the relationship. To reach some other end, or to simply get people to like us, incentives cause us to adopt different behaviors depending on the situation.

The third reason, and the subject of this post, is the two-person hierarchy. You can take nearly any relationship between two people, and you’ll find an unintended and unspoken hierarchy. Watch how one shies away from disagreement and criticism, is careful to couch their words as to not cause offense, is constantly amenable to the proposals of the other, and tries to earn the other’s praise. Meanwhile, the “other” will assert their wants without hesitation, freely voice criticisms, be unbothered by conflict, be less hungry for validation or attention, etc. This dynamic where one person shows a natural deference (or even submissiveness, depending on degree) to the other is ubiquitous throughout the social environment.

Since the fundamental elements involved are so simple, let’s name them, and illustrate the possible scenarios that can arise. Let us label the assertive party as “A,” the submissive party with “B,” and a contentious party (arising when both individuals wish to be A) as “C.”

Thus, whenever we as individuals have a relationship with another person we can assume only one of three roles: 1) we can be party A assuming an assertive position around B, 2) we can be party B and defer to A, or 3) we can be party C vying to be party A with someone else who is also attempting to assume that same position.

Photo byAuthor

I would encourage the reader here to reflect on their own relationships, with their best friend, with their parents, with their romantic partner, etc. Wherever frequent arguments occur, it is likely one has assumed the role of party C; there is no clear submissive so conflict ensues as each try to wrest control of the assertive position. Meanwhile, it is very likely that we have other relationships where we’re a clear A or clear B.

Value of the Hierarchy

The natural hierarchy is likely an instinct that evolved as a mechanism for social cohesion. Conflict stems from equality. This is necessarily the case as conflict requires two parties, and a clear submissive would be unwilling to engage in the reciprocative effort.

The two-person hierarchies act as cells in the hierarchies we see at larger scales — that is, those hierarchies involving more people. For example, if you take a group of five close friends, all will have an implicit place in the pecking order, and this will govern group dynamics. This “pecking order” will be established on a one-on-one basis. Whoever assumes an A position in regard to the most other members will functionally stand at the head of that group.

When, as humans, we naturally order ourselves, we become efficient cooperatives. Infighting and a lack of social cohesion would hamper any group’s effectiveness when compared to a group that naturally synchronizes around the assertions of party A. Thus, there would be a degree of Darwinian fitness conferred on bands of humans that adopted these behaviors vs. those that didn’t, so we can see why such an instinct developed.

Yet, this instinct can make life very hard for individuals. There are those who struggle to be party A and are constantly having their wants and needs trampled over by others. Nature has made it so that we’re very uncomfortable having any conflict with those we hold in an A position relative ourselves. Conversely, we are quick to anger with those we hold in a B position relative ourselves. Nature primes our emotions to ensure the dynamic is resistant to change.

The only time this dynamic is not present is between strangers. However, as a relationship begins to grow one of the three positions will be assumed, and it will determine the nature of the relationship. Over time, the hierarchy can invert, but it will put a significant strain on the relationship. When party B starts to believe they don’t really need the relationship, or when they have grown in confidence and are tired of playing the role of the submissive, they may engage in more assertive behaviors. This is sure to elicit a negative response from party A. Most often, the relationship will end or at least be diminished, instead of the dynamic changing in an enduring way.

When the dynamic does change, the now party A (formerly party B) tends to carry resentment against the now party B and is particularly aggressive and/or dismissive as a result of it. The now party B will have a quiet resentment about their demotion in the hierarchy, which if they ever get the chance to feel assertive again, will similarly be prone to coming with retributive behavior. And, of course, the transition is apt to be marked with many episodes of assumed party C behavior, where both are outright fighting the other.

If we think back on a romantic relationship, where we first pursued someone or they pursued us, but the pursuer eventually lost interest and was the one to end the relationship, we can likely see all the dynamics play out in a sequence. Let us personify our examples some and use it to tell a story: A man and a woman go on a date. He’s not very into her, but they continue to talk anyways. She’s very much infatuated with him, and he primarily keeps the relationship going because of a slight attraction, ego boost, and for basic companionship. However, over time his feelings continue to grow and grow. He has remained party A all the while. She defers to him, she shies away from conflict with him, she is careful not to criticize him, etc.

They carry on, and his feelings begin to match hers, but in their A-B dynamic he remains in the A position. Eventually, as she learns more and more about him, she becomes disillusioned with him. As she begins to feel that she doesn’t want the relationship as much as she once did, he has less emotional leverage over her. The power dynamics are shifting, and she will engage in some party C behaviors: starting arguments, complaining about his behavior, etc. His A position is being threatened, so he also has to adopt a contentious C stance. Here, the hierarchy will make itself clear again. Who ends up being the one who backs down in the argument or chases the other if they begin to pull back?

If he remains in the A position, things may continue but probably with a degree of instability. Unless his position was firmly reasserted, then more bouts of party C behavior can be expected until perhaps she tries to leave him altogether. If she moves to end the relationship, feeling very insecure in his position and seeing that he holds no sway over her, he may flip to being party B. He’s now pleading with her to return, promising to change, and all the like. Unfortunately for the pair, the fact that they entered the relationship in their respective positions suggests that this is how they like to be in a relationship. They cannot co-exist peacefully without him firmly in the A position and her firmly in the B position. The relationship is unsalvageable.

This same story happens with every single relationship we have over the course of our lives. We are either A, B, or C. C relationships are likely to be volatile and have less depth than A or B. Our best friend is very likely to be an A, as are our parents. We’re likely to be A or B, and stick to the one, in each and every romantic relationship we have. If it flips, the relationship is likely to end. Very rarely can any relationship survive a hierarchy flip.

There’s a good chance your life looks something like this (though it’s equally likely for you to be either the A or B role with your partner):

Photo byAuthor

Conclusion

Our personality changes around different people depending on the dynamic we have with them. We can go out for breakfast in the morning with our best friend and assume a B role, then spend the day at home with our significant other in an A role. One of our parents can come over in the evening for a movie, and we’re back to a B role in regards to them. The following day we may meet up with a friend who we have a love/hate relationship with, and it may be a C role as the hierarchy is unsettled. Of course, this is not limited to separate encounters; we can be among a group of people while yielding to some and unconsciously expecting others to yield to us.

Nature has designed us to show these assertive, submissive, contentious behaviors for the purpose of group cohesion. Groups of individuals that didn’t have an instinct to act this way were likely wiped out by those that did. Next time we wonder why we act so differently with our awkward friend or the person who’s attracted to us, but that we’re not attracted to in return — only for our personality to do a 180° turnabout around our parents, best friend, or the person we are attracted to — we have our answer. Natural selection has designed us to play different roles in a constantly present social hierarchy.