8.1 Understanding Conflict

The term “conflict” is actually very difficult to pin down. We could have an entire chapter where we just examined various definitions of the term. Simplistically, conflict is an interactive process occurring when conscious beings (individuals or groups) have opposing or incompatible actions, beliefs, goals, ideas, motives, needs, objectives, obligations resources and/or values. First, conflict is interactive and inherently communicative. Second, two or more people or even groups of people who can think must be involved. Lastly, there are a whole range of different areas where people can have opposing or incompatible opinions. For this generic definition, we provided a laundry list of different types of incompatibility that can exist between two or more individuals or groups. Is this list completely exhaustive? No. But we provided this list as a way of thinking about the more common types of issues that are raised when people engage in conflict. From this perspective, everything from a minor disagreement to a knock-down, drag-out fight would classify as a conflict.

The rest of this section is going to explore the nature of conflict and its importance in communication. To do this, we’ll break down the definition of conflict. Then we’ll discuss two different perspectives on conflict (disruption vs. normalcy). Lastly, we’ll discuss the positive and negative functions of conflict.

8.1.1 Defining Interpersonal Conflict

According to Cahn and Abigail (2014), interpersonal conflict requires four factors to be present:

1. the conflict parties are interdependent,
2. they have the perception that they seek incompatible goals or outcomes or they favor incompatible means to the same ends,
3. the perceived incompatibility has the potential to adversely affect the relationship leaving emotional residues if not addressed, and
4. there is a sense of urgency about the need to resolve the difference.

Let’s look at each of these parts of interpersonal conflict separately.

People are Interdependent

According to Cahn and Abigail, “interdependence occurs when those involved in a relationship characterize it as continuous and important, making it worth the effort to maintain” (Cahn & Abigail, 2014). From this perspective, interpersonal conflict occurs when we are in some kind of relationship with another person. For example, it could be a relationship with a parent/guardian, a child, a coworker, a boss, a spouse, etc. In each of these interpersonal relationships, we generally see ourselves as having long-term relationships with these people that we want to succeed. Notice, though, that if you’re arguing with a random person on a subway, that will not fall into this definition because of the interdependence factor. We may have disagreements and arguments with all kinds of strangers, but those don’t rise to the level of interpersonal conflicts.

People Perceive Differing Goals/Outcomes of Means to the Same Ends

An incompatible goal occurs when two people want different things. For example, imagine you and your best friend are thinking about going to the movies. They want to see a big-budget superhero film, and you’re more in the mood for an independent artsy film. In this case, you have pretty incompatible goals (movie choices). You can also have incompatible means to reach the same end. Incompatible means, in this case, “occur when we want to achieve the same goal but differ in how we should do so” (Cahn & Abigail, 2014). For example, you and your best friend agree on going to the same movie, but not about at which theatre you should see the film.

Conflict Can Negatively Affect the Relationship if Not Addressed

Next, interpersonal conflicts can lead to very negative outcomes if the conflicts are not managed effectively. Here are some examples of conflicts that are not managed effectively:

• One partner dominates the conflict, and the other partner caves-in.
• One partner yells or belittles the other partner.
• One partner uses half-truths or lies to get her/his/their way during the conflict.
• Both partners only want to get their way at all costs.
• One partner refuses to engage in conflict.

Again, this is a sample laundry list of some of the ways where conflict can be mismanaged. When conflict is mismanaged, one or both partners can start to have less affinity for the other partner, which can lead to a decreasing in liking, decreased caring about the relational partner, increased desire to exit the relationship, increased relational apathy, increased revenge-seeking behavior, etc. All of these negative outcomes could ultimately lead to conflicts becoming increasingly more aggressive (both active and passive) or just outright conflict avoidance. We’ll look at both of these later in the chapter.

Some Sense of Urgency to Resolve Conflict

Lastly, there must be some sense of urgency to resolve the conflict within the relationship. The conflict gets to the point where it must receive attention, and a decision must be made or an outcome decided upon, or else. If a conflict reaches the point where it’s not solved, then the conflict could become more problematic and negative if it’s not dealt with urgently.

Now, some people let conflicts stir and rise over many years that can eventually boil over, but these types of conflicts when they arise generally have some other kind of underlying conflict that is causing the sudden explosion. For example, imagine your spouse has a particularly quirky habit. For the most part, you ignore this habit and may even make a joke about the habit. Finally, one day you just explode and demand the habit must change. Now, it’s possible that you let this conflict build for so long that it finally explodes. It’s kind of like a geyser. According to Yellowstone National Park (2015), here’s how a geyser works:

The looping chambers trap steam from the hot water. Escaped bubbles from trapped steam heat the water column to the boiling point. When the pressure from the trapped steam builds enough, it blasts, releasing the pressure. As the entire water column boils out of the ground, more than half the volume is this steam. The eruption stops when the water cools below the boiling point.

In the same way, sometimes people let irritations or underlying conflict percolate inside of them until they reach a boiling point, which leads to the eventual release of pressure in the form of a sudden, out of nowhere conflict. In this case, even though the conflict has been building for some time, the eventual desire to make this conflict known to the other person does cause an immediate sense of urgency for the conflict to be solved.

8.1.2 Two Perspectives on Conflict

As with most areas of interpersonal communication, no single perspective exists in the field related to interpersonal conflict. There are generally two very different perspectives that one can take (see Simons, 1972). On the one hand, you had scholars who see conflict as a disruption in a normal working system, which should be avoided. On the other hand, some scholars view conflict as a normal part of human relationships. Let’s look at each of these in this section.

Disruptions in Normal Workings of a System

The first major perspective on conflict views it as inherently disruptive and potentially harmful to relationships and social harmony. This perspective, often aligned with collectivistic cultures, emphasizes the importance of group cohesion, maintaining relationships, and avoiding direct confrontation. According to McCroskey and Wheeless (1976), conflict in interpersonal relationships is seen as the breakdown of affinity—the erosion of mutual attraction, the perception of incompatibility, and the development of disrespect between individuals. From this viewpoint, conflict is not simply a disagreement over an issue but a deeper disruption of social bonds, often leading to negative emotions and damaged relationships. Collectivistic cultures, which prioritize harmony and interdependence, tend to view conflict as something to be avoided whenever possible, as it threatens the stability and well-being of the group.

From this perspective, conflict is often managed through indirect communication, compromise, or avoidance, with an emphasis on preserving relationships over winning the argument. When conflict escalates and is allowed to fester, it is compared to a wound that worsens without care. While disagreements can be addressed and resolved in a way that allows both parties to save face, conflicts are seen as far more damaging and may require significant effort to manage without causing lasting harm to the relationship.

Normal Part of Human Communication

The second perspective of the concept of conflict is very different from the first one. According to this perspective, conflict is a normal and an inevitable part of life, essential for the growth of relationships (Cahn & Abigail, 2014).  From this viewpoint, conflict is a natural aspect of human interaction, where individuals with different perspectives and needs come together to negotiate, collaborate, and find solutions. In fact, one could ask whether it is possible for relationships to grow without conflict. Successfully managing and resolving conflicts can make relationships healthier, fostering mutual understanding and trust.

In this approach, conflict is seen as neither inherently good nor bad, but rather a tool that can be used for constructive or destructive purposes, depending on how it is handled. When managed well, conflict can offer numerous benefits to individuals and relationships. It helps people find common ground, develop better conflict management skills for the future, and gain a deeper understanding of one another. Conflict often leads to creative solutions to problems, providing opportunities for open and honest discussions that build trust. Moreover, navigating conflict encourages personal growth, improves communication skills, and enhances emotional intelligence. It also allows individuals to set healthy boundaries, assert their needs, and practice effective communication strategies.

When viewed from this perspective, conflict is an invaluable resource in relationships, offering opportunities for learning, development, and connection. However, for conflict to be truly beneficial, both parties must engage in prosocial conflict management strategies—working together to ensure the conflict leads to positive outcomes for all involved.

8.2 Power and Influence

One of the primary reasons we engage in a variety of interpersonal relationships over our lifetimes is to influence others. We live in a world where we constantly need to accomplish a variety of goals, so being able to get others to jump on board with our goals is a very important part of social survival. As such, we define influence when an individual or group of people alters another person’s thinking, feelings, and/or behaviors through accidental, expressive, or rhetorical communication (Wrench, McCrosky, & Richmond, 2008). Notice this definition of influence is one that focuses on the importance of communication within the interaction. Within this definition, we discuss three specific types of communication: unintentional, expressive, or rhetorical.

First, we have unintentional communication, or when we send messages to another person without realizing those messages are being sent. Imagine you are walking through your campus’ food court and notice a table set up for a specific charity. A person who we really respect is hanging out at the table laughing and smiling, so you decide to donate a dollar to the charity. The person who was just hanging out at the table influenced your decision to donate. They could have just been talking to another friend and may not have even really been a supporter of the charity, but their presence was enough to influence your donation. At the same time, we often influence others to think, feel, and behave in ways they wouldn’t have unconsciously. A smile, a frown, a head nod, or eye eversion can all be nonverbal indicators to other people, which could influence them.

The second type of communication we can have is expressive or emotionally-based communication. Our emotional states can often influence other people. If we are happy, others can become happy, and if we are sad, others may avoid us altogether. Maybe you’ve walked into a room and seen someone crying, so you ask, “Are you OK?” Instead of responding, the person just turns and glowers at you, so you turn around and leave. With just one look, this person influenced your behavior.

The final type of communication, rhetorical communication, involves purposefully creating and sending messages to another person in the hopes of altering another person’s thinking, feelings, and/or behaviors. Unintentional communication is not planned. Expressive communication is often not conscious at all. However, rhetorical communication is purposeful. When we are using rhetorical communication to influence another person(s), we know that we are trying to influence that person(s).

8.2.1 French & Raven’s Five Bases of Power

When you hear the word “power,” what comes to mind? Maybe you think of a powerful person like a Superhero or the leader of your country. For social scientists, we use the word “power” in a very specific way. Power is the degree that a social agent (A) has the ability to get another person(s) (P) to alter their thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors. First, you have a social agent (A), which can come in a variety of different forms: another person, a role someone embodies, a group rule or norm, or a group or part of a group (French & Raven, 1959). Next, we have the person(s) who is being influenced by the goal to be a specific change in thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors. When we discussed influence above, we talked about it in terms of communication: accidental, expressive, and rhetorical. When we deal with power, we are only dealing in the realm of rhetorical communication because the person exerting power over another person is consciously goal-directed.

Power does not always operate in the same way. Let’s examine five different bases of power.

• Informational: Informational power refers to a social agent’s ability to bring about a change in thought, feeling, and/or behavior through information. For example, since you initially started school, teachers have had informational power over you. They have provided you with a range of information on history, science, grammar, art, etc. that shape how you think (what constitutes history?), feel (what does it mean to be aesthetically pleasing?), and behave (how do you properly mix chemicals in a lab?). In some ways, informational power is very strong, because it’s often the first form of power with which we come into contact. In fact, when you are taught how to think, feel, and/or behave, this change “now continues without the target necessarily referring to, or even remembering, the [influencer] as being the agent of change” (Raven, 2008).
• Coercive and Reward: Coercive power, is the ability to punish an individual who does not comply with one’s influencing attempts. On the other end of the spectrum, we have reward power (3^rd base of power), which is the ability to offer an individual rewards for complying with one’s influencing attempts. We talk about these two bases of power together because they are two sides of the same coin. Furthermore, the same problems with this type of power apply equally to both. Influence can happen if you punish or reward someone; however, as soon as you take away that punishment or reward, the thoughts, feelings, and/or behavior will reverse back to its initial state. Hence, we refer to both coercive and reward power as attempts to get someone to comply with influence, because this is the highest level of influence one can hope to achieve with these two forms of power.
• Legitimate: Legitimate power, is influence that occurs because a person (P) believes that the social agent (A) has a valid right to influence P, and P has an obligation to accept A’s attempt to influence P’s thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors. French and Raven argued that there were two common forms of legitimate power: cultural and structural. Cultural legitimate power occurs when a change agent is viewed as having the right to influence others because of their role in the culture. For example, in some cultures, the elderly may have a stronger right to influence than younger members of that culture. Structural legitimate power, on the other hand, occurs because someone fulfills a specific position within the social hierarchy. For example, your boss may have the legitimate right to influence your thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors in the workplace because they are above you in the organizational hierarchy (French & Raven, 1959).
• Expert: Expert power, is the power we give an individual to influence us because of their perceived knowledge. For example, we often give our physicians the ability to influence our behavior (e.g., eat right, exercise, take medication, etc.) because we view these individuals as having specialized knowledge. However, this type of influence only is effective if P believes A is an expert, P trusts A, and P believes that A is telling the truth. One problem we often face in the 21^st Century involves the conceptualization of the word “expert.” Many people in today’s world can be perceived as “experts” just because they write a book, have a talk show, were on a reality TV show, or are seen on news programs (Bauerlein, 2008). Many of these so-called “experts” may have no reasonable skill or knowledge but they can be trumpeted as experts. One of the problems with the Internet is the fundamental flaw that anyone can put information online with only an opinion and no actual facts. Additionally, we often engage in debates about “facts” because we have different talking heads telling us different information. Historically, expert power was always a very strong form of power, but there is growing concern that we are losing expertise and knowledge to unsubstantiated opinions and rumor mongering.
• Referent:  Referent power, is a social agent’s ability to influence another person because P wants to be associated with A. Ultimately, referent power is about relationship building and the desire for a relationship. If A is a person P finds attractive, then P will do whatever they need to do to become associated with A. If A belongs to a group, then P will want to join that group. Ultimately, this relationship exists because P wants to think, feel, and behave as A does. For example, if A decides that he likes modern art, then P will also decide to like modern art. If A has a very strong work ethic in the workplace, then P will adopt a strong work ethic in the workplace as well. Often A has no idea of the influence they are having over P. Ultimately, the stronger P desires to be associated with A, the more referent power A has over P.

Influence and Power

By now, you may be wondering about the relationship between influence and power. Research has examined the relationship between the three levels of influence and the six bases of power. Coercive, reward, and legitimate power only influence people at the compliance level. Whereas, informational, expert, and referent power have been shown to influence people at all three levels of influence: compliance, identification, and internalization (Wrench, McCrosky, & Richmond, 2008). When you think about your own interpersonal influencing goals, you really need to consider what level of influence you desire a person’s change in thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors to be. If your goal is just to get the change quickly, then using coercive, reward, and legitimate power may be the best route. If, however, you want to ensure long-term influence, then using informational, expert, and referent power are probably the best routes to use.

8.3 Emotions and Feelings

Emotions and feelings play a significant role in shaping how interpersonal conflicts unfold and are managed. When individuals experience strong emotions, such as anger, frustration, or hurt, they may react impulsively, escalating the conflict or making it harder to find common ground. Additionally, emotions can cloud judgment, leading to misinterpretations of others’ intentions and heightened defensiveness. On the other hand, being aware of and managing emotions can help individuals approach conflict with greater empathy, patience, and clarity, enabling more productive and respectful communication.

As we discuss the effects of our emotions and feelings on conflicts, it’s important to differentiate between emotions and feelings. Emotions are our reactions to stimuli in the outside environment. Emotions, therefore, can be objectively measured by blood flow, brain activity, and nonverbal reactions to things. Feelings, on the other hand, are the responses to thoughts and interpretations given to emotions based on experiences, memory, expectations, and personality. So, there is an inherent relationship between emotions and feelings, but we do differentiate between them. Table 8.1 breaks down the differences between the two concepts.

© John W. Voris, CEO of Authentic Systems, www.authentic-systems.com Reprinted here with permission.
Feelings:	Emotions:
Feelings tell us “how to live.”	Emotions tell us what we “like” and “dislike.”
Feelings state: “There is a right and wrong way to be.“	Emotions state: “There are good and bad actions.”
Feelings state: “your emotions matter.”	Emotions state: “The external world matters.”
Feelings establish our long-term attitude toward reality.	Emotions establish our initial attitude toward reality.
Feelings alert us to anticipated dangers and prepares us for action.	Emotions alert us to immediate dangers and prepare us for action.
Feelings ensure long-term survival of self (body and mind).	Emotions ensure immediate survival of self (body and mind).
Feelings are Low-key but Sustainable.	Emotions are Intense but Temporary.
Happiness: is a feeling.	Joy: is an emotion.
Worry: is a feeling.	Fear: is an emotion.
Contentment: is a feeling.	Enthusiasm: is an emotion.
Bitterness: is a feeling.	Anger: is an emotion.
Love: is a feeling.	Lust: is an emotion.
Depression: is a feeling.	Sadness: is an emotion.

Table 8.1 The Differences of Emotions and Feelings

It’s important to understand that we are all allowed to be emotional beings. Being emotional is an inherent part of being a human. For this reason, it’s important to avoid phrases like “don’t feel that way” or “they have no right to feel that way.” Again, our emotions are our emotions, and, when we negate someone else’s emotions, we are negating that person as an individual and taking away their right to emotional responses.

We all have the ability to alter our emotions. Altering our emotional states (in a proactive way) is how we get through life. Maybe you just broke up with someone, and listening to music helps you work through the grief you are experiencing to get to a better place. For others, they need to openly communicate about how they are feeling in an effort to process and work through emotions. The worst thing a person can do is attempt to deny that the emotion exists.

• Think of this like a balloon. With each breath of air you blow into the balloon, you are bottling up more and more emotions. Eventually, that balloon will get to a point where it cannot handle any more air in it before it explodes. Humans can be the same way with emotions when we bottle them up inside. The final breath of air in our emotional balloon doesn’t have to be big or intense. However, it can still cause tremendous emotional outpouring that is often very damaging to the person and their interpersonal relationships with others.

Research has demonstrated that how we handle our negative emotions during conflicts can affect the rate of de-escalations and mediation (Bloch, Haase, & Levenson, 2014).

8.3.1Expressing Feelings: The Problem of You Statements

According to Marshall Rosenberg, the creator of nonviolent communication, “You” statements often reflect moralistic judgments where we imply that the other person is wrong or bad based on their behavior (2003). When we make such judgments, we deny responsibility for our own thoughts, feelings, and actions. It’s important to remember that no one can “make” us feel a certain way—we choose our emotional responses. When we shift blame onto others and fail to take responsibility for our emotions, we create a cycle of defensiveness, making it harder to meet our needs in the relationship. Behind every negative emotion lies an unmet need, and blaming others only perpetuates the problem. For example, someone might say, “If you go hang out with your friends tonight, I’ll hurt myself and it will be your fault.” In this case, the individual is expressing disapproval and using blame to manipulate their partner’s actions, which can lead to unhealthy dynamics where neither person’s needs are truly met.

Expressing emotions, however, is only part of the process. It’s also important to clearly identify the underlying need. When we talk about “needs,” we are not just referring to basic physical needs, as described in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Instead, relational needs are often less tangible but equally important, such as the need for autonomy and connection, as outlined in the Table below (adapted from Rosenberg, 2003). When these needs go unmet, we naturally reach out to get them fulfilled. Effective communication about emotions involves not only expressing feelings but also identifying the unmet need behind them. For example, instead of blaming or accusing, one could say, “I feel hurt when you yell at me because I need to feel respected.”

Notice that there isn’t judgment associated with identifying one’s needs.

Area	Need
Autonomy	to choose one’s dreams, goals, values
	to choose one’s plan for fulfilling one’s dreams, goals, values
Spiritual Communion	beauty, harmony
	inspiration
	order, peace
Physical Nurturance	air
	food, water
	movement, exercise
	protection from life-threatening forms of life: viruses, bacteria, insects, predatory animals
	rest
	shelter
Integrity	authenticity
	creativity
	meaning, self-worth
Interdependence	acceptance, understanding, empathy
	appreciation, consideration
	closeness, love, community, warmth
	reassurance
	respect, trust, honesty
Source: Adapted from Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life 2nd Ed by Dr. Marshall B. Rosenberg, 2003–published by PuddleDancer Press and Used with Permission. For more information visit www.CNVC.org and www.NonviolentCommunication.com

Table 8.2 Needs

8.3.2Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence(EQ) is an individual’s appraisal and expression of their emotions and the emotions of others in a manner that enhances thought, living, and communicative interactions. Furthermore, we learned that EQ is built by four distinct emotional processes: perceiving, understanding, managing, and using emotions (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Take a minute and complete Table 8.3, which is a simple 20-item questionnaire designed to help you evaluate your own EQ.

Table 8.3 Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire

Emotional intelligence plays a crucial role in effectively handling conflict, as it involves the ability to recognize, understand, and manage both your own emotions and those of others. Individuals with high emotional intelligence are better equipped to navigate the emotional landscape of conflict, allowing them to remain calm, empathetic, and thoughtful in tense situations. They can identify underlying emotions that fuel disagreements, such as frustration, fear, or hurt, and respond in ways that de-escalate tension rather than inflame it. Emotional intelligence also helps people communicate more clearly and compassionately, fostering open dialogue and mutual understanding. By managing emotions constructively, individuals are more likely to resolve conflicts in ways that strengthen relationships, build trust, and promote long-term collaboration. Ultimately, emotional intelligence allows people to approach conflict not as a threat, but as an opportunity for growth and deeper connection.

Next, let’s discuss common communication strategies for managing conflict.

8.4 Conflict Management Strategies

Many researchers have attempted to understand how humans handle conflict with one another. You may see classifications of conflict based on whether participants are Integrative or distributive ; and how assertive and cooperative they are. All of these approaches are valid to understanding conflict. However, in this textbook we have chosen to simplify conflict management into 3 primary strategies known as the ABCs.

8.4.1 ABC’s of Conflict

So how do you typically approach a conflict situation? Go ahead and take a moment to complete the questionnaire in Table 8.4 to identify some of your own common patterns.

Table 8.4 ABC’s of Conflict Management

Avoiders

Conflict avoidance is the practice of deliberately steering clear of addressing disagreements or confrontations in personal or professional relationships. People often avoid conflict because they fear negative outcomes, such as damaged relationships, emotional discomfort, or escalated tension. Some individuals may also avoid conflict due to a desire to maintain harmony, low self-confidence, or previous experiences where conflict led to undesirable consequences. While conflict avoidance can offer short-term benefits, like reducing immediate stress or preserving peace, it has significant drawbacks. On the positive side, avoiding conflict can sometimes prevent unnecessary arguments or allow time for emotions to cool down. However, consistently avoiding conflict often leads to unresolved issues, increased frustration, and weakened relationships over time. When people avoid addressing problems, underlying tensions may fester, leading to larger, more difficult conflicts in the future. Ultimately, while avoidance might seem easier in the moment, it can prevent open communication and inhibit healthy problem-solving.

Table 8.4 provides a list of common tactics used by avoiders in conflict (Sillars, Coletti, Parry, & Rogers, 1982).

Conflict Management Tactic	Definition	Example
Simple Denial	Statements that deny the conflict.	“No, I’m perfectly fine.”
Extended Denial	Statements that deny conflict with a short justification.	“No, I’m perfectly fine. I just had a long night.”
Underresponsiveness	Statements that deny the conflict and then pose a question to the conflict partner.	“I don’t know why you are upset, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?”
Topic Shifting	Statements that shift the interaction away from the conflict.	“Sorry to hear that. Did you hear about the mall opening?”
Topic Avoidance	Statements designed to clearly stop the conflict.	“I don’t want to deal with this right now.”
Abstractness	Statements designed to shift a conflict from concrete factors to more abstract ones.	“Yes, I know I’m late. But what is time really except a construction of humans to force conformity.”
Semantic Focus	Statements focused on the denotative and connotative definitions of words.	“So, what do you mean by the word ‘sex’?”
Process Focus	Statements focused on the “appropriate” procedures for handling conflict.	“I refuse to talk to you when you are angry.”
Joking	Humorous statements designed to derail conflict.	“That’s about as useless as a football bat.”
Ambivalence	Statements designed to indicate a lack of caring.	“Whatever!” “Just do what you want.”
Pessimism	Statements that devalue the purpose of conflict.	“What’s the point of fighting over this? Neither of us are changing our minds.”
Evasion	Statements designed to shift the focus of the conflict.	“I hear the Joneses down the street have that problem, not us.”
Stalling	Statements designed to shift the conflict to another time.	“I don’t have time to talk about this right now.”
Irrelevant Remark	Statements that have nothing to do with the conflict.	“I never knew the wallpaper in here had flowers on it.”

Table 8.4 Avoidant Conflict Management Strategies

Battlers

“Battlers,” also known as aggressive or competitive communicators, approach conflict with a win-at-all-costs mindset, viewing disagreements as a zero-sum game where one side emerges victorious while the other loses. Battlers engage in what is called distributive conflict, where their primary focus is on achieving their own goals, often without regard to the feelings or needs of others. This approach to conflict can be highly antagonistic and personalistic, as battlers tend to target the individual rather than just the issue at hand. While this style can sometimes lead to short-term wins or assertively defending one’s position, it often causes significant relational damage, fostering resentment and hostility. The aggressive nature of battlers may lead to burned bridges and strained communication in the long run. On the positive side, battlers can be decisive, willing to take charge and tackle difficult situations head-on. However, the downside is that their lack of concern for collaboration or compromise can result in broken trust, weakened relationships, and an inability to resolve conflicts in a way that benefits both parties (Sillars et al., 1982).

Table 8.5 provides a list of common tactics used by battlers in conflict (Sillars et al., 1982).

Conflict Management Tactic	Definition	Example
Faulting	Statements that verbally criticize a partner.	“Wow, I can’t believe you are so dense at times.”
Rejection	Statements that express antagonistic disagreement.	“That is such a dumb idea.”
Hostile Questioning	Questions designed to fault a partner.	“Who died and made you king?”
Hostile Joking	Humorous statements designed to attack a partner.	“I do believe a village has lost its idiot.”
Presumptive Attribution	Statements designed to point the meaning or origin of the conflict to another source.	“You just think that because your father keeps telling you that.”
Avoiding Responsibility	Statements that deny fault.	“Not my fault, not my problem.”
Prescription	Statements that describe a specific change to another’s behavior.	“You know, if you’d just stop yelling, maybe people would take you seriously.”
Threat	Statements designed to inform a partner of a future punishment.	“You either tell your mother we’re not coming, or I’m getting a divorce attorney.”
Blame	Statements that lay culpability for a problem on a partner.	“It’s your fault we got ourselves in this mess in the first place.”
Shouting	Statements delivered in a manner with an increased volume.	“DAMMIT! GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER!”
Sarcasm	Statements involving the use of irony to convey contempt, mock, insult, or wound another person.	“The trouble with you is that you lack the power of conversation but not the power of speech.”

Table 8.5 Battling Conflict Management Strategies

Collaborators

Collaborators approach conflict with a focus on finding mutually beneficial solutions, aiming for outcomes where both sides feel satisfied with the resolution. They engage in prosocial communication behaviors, emphasizing open dialogue, active listening, and problem-solving to ensure that all parties’ needs are considered. Collaborators may either work toward a fully cooperative solution or, when necessary, compromise, understanding that each side may need to give up something to reach a fair and balanced outcome. While this approach is often ideal, it can be difficult to achieve, especially when one party is unwilling to collaborate or is more focused on “winning” the conflict. In such cases, collaborative strategies may not be effective because successful collaboration requires both parties to engage in good faith. Despite these challenges, collaboration is typically seen as a constructive approach to conflict, as it strengthens relationships, builds trust, and encourages long-term cooperation by valuing the perspectives and needs of everyone involved.

Table 8.6 provides a list of common tactics used by collaborators in conflict (Sillars et al., 1982).

Conflict Management Tactic	Definition	Example
Descriptive Acts	Statements that describe obvious events or factors.	“Last time your sister babysat our kids, she yelled at them.”
Qualification	Statements that explicitly explain the conflict.	“I am upset because you didn’t come home last night.”
Disclosure	Statements that disclose one’s thoughts and feelings in a non-judgmental way.	“I get really worried when you don’t call and let me know where you are.”
Soliciting Disclosure	Questions that ask another person to disclose their thoughts and feelings.	“How do you feel about what I just said?”
Negative Inquiry	Statements allowing for the other person to identify your negative behaviors.	“What is it that I do that makes you yell at me?”
Empathy	Statements that indicate you understand and relate to the other person’s emotions and experiences.	“I know this isn’t easy for you.”
Emphasize Commonalities	Statements that highlight shared goals, aims, and values.	“We both want what’s best for our son.”
Accepting Responsibility	Statements acknowledging the part you play within a conflict.	“You’re right. I sometimes let my anger get the best of me.”
Initiating Problem-Solving	Statements designed to help the conflict come to a mutually agreed upon solution.	“So let’s brainstorm some ways that will help us solve this.”
Concession	Statements designed to give in or yield to a partner’s goals, aims, or values.	“I promise, I will make sure my homework is complete before I watch television.”

Table 8.6 Collaborative Conflict Management Strategies

Before we conclude this section, we do want to point out that conflict management strategies are often reciprocated by others. If you start a conflict in a highly competitive way, do not be surprised when your conflicting partner mirrors you and starts using distributive conflict management strategies in return. The same is also true for integrative conflict management strategies. When you start using integrative conflict management strategies, you may be able to deescalate a problematic conflict by using integrative conflict management strategies.

8.5 Resolving Conflict Effectively

Cahn and Abigail created a very simple model that can help us to think through a heated conflict situation (2014). They called the model the STLC Conflict Model because it stands for stop, think, listen, and then communicate.

Step 1: Stop

The first thing an individual needs to do when interacting with another person during conflict is to take the time to be present within the conflict itself. Too often, people engaged in a conflict say whatever enters their mind before they’ve really had a chance to process the message and think of the best strategies to use to send that message. Others end up talking past one another during a conflict because they simply are not paying attention to each other and the competing needs within the conflict. Communication problems often occur during conflict because people tend to react to conflict situations when they arise instead of being mindful and present during the conflict itself. For this reason, it’s always important to take a breath during a conflict and first stop.

Sometimes these “time outs” need to be physical. Maybe you need to leave the room and go for a brief walk to calm down, or maybe you just need to get a glass of water. Whatever you need to do, it’s important to take this break. This break takes you out of a “reactive stance into a proactive one” (Cahn & Abigail, 2014).

Step 2: Think

Once you’ve stopped, you now have the ability to really think about what you are communicating. You want to think through the conflict itself. What is the conflict really about? Often people engage in conflicts about superficial items when there are truly much deeper issues that are being avoided. You also want to consider what possible causes led to the conflict and what possible courses of action you think are possible to conclude the conflict. Cahn and Abigail argue that there are four possible outcomes that can occur: do nothing, change yourself, change the other person, or change the situation.

1. First, you can simply sit back and avoid the conflict. Maybe you’re engaging in a conflict about politics with a family member, and this conflict is actually just going to make everyone mad. For this reason, you opt just to stop the conflict and change topics to avoid making people upset. One of our coauthors was at a funeral when an uncle asked our coauthor about our coauthor’s impression of the current President. Our coauthor’s immediate response was, “Do you really want me to answer that question?” Our coauthor knew that everyone else in the room would completely disagree, so our coauthor knew this was probably a can of worms that just didn’t need to be opened.
2. Second, we can change ourselves. Often, we are at fault and start conflicts. We may not even realize how our behavior caused the conflict until we take a step back and really analyze what is happening. When it comes to being at fault, it’s very important to admit that you’ve done wrong. Nothing is worse (and can stoke a conflict more) than when someone refuses to see their part in the conflict.
3. Third, we can attempt to change the other person. Let’s face it, changing someone else is easier said than done. Just ask your parents/guardians! All of our parents/guardians have attempted to change our behaviors at one point or another, and changing people is very hard. Even with the powers of punishment and reward, a lot of time change only lasts as long as the punishment or the reward. One of our coauthors was in a constant battle with our coauthors’ parents about thumb sucking as a child. Our coauthor’s parents tried everything to get the thumb sucking to stop. They finally came up with an ingenious plan. They agreed to buy a toy electric saw if their child didn’t engage in thumb sucking for the entire month. Well, for a whole month, no thumb sucking occurred at all. The child got the toy saw, and immediately inserted the thumb back into our coauthor’s mouth. This short story is a great illustration of the problems that can be posed by rewards. Punishment works the same way. As long as people are being punished, they will behave in a specific way. If that punishment is ever taken away, so will the behavior.
4. Lastly, we can just change the situation. Having a conflict with your roommates? Move out. Having a conflict with your boss? Find a new job. Having a conflict with a professor? Drop the course. Admittedly, changing the situation is not necessarily the first choice people should take when thinking about possibilities, but often it’s the best decision for long-term happiness. In essence, some conflicts will not be settled between people. When these conflicts arise, you can try and change yourself, hope the other person will change (they probably won’t, though), or just get out of it altogether.

Step 3: Listen

The third step in the STLC model is listen. Humans are not always the best listeners. As we discussed in Chapter 6, active listening is a skill that requires us to pay attention, reflect, and respond to a partner. Unfortunately, during a conflict situation, this is a skill that is desperately needed and often forgotten. When we feel defensive during a conflict, our listening becomes spotty at best because we start to focus on ourselves and protecting ourselves instead of trying to be empathic and seeing the conflict through the other person’s eyes.

One mistake some people make is to think they’re listening, but in reality, they’re listening for flaws in the other person’s argument (known as defensive listening). We often use this type of selective listening as a way to devalue the other person’s stance. In essence, we will hear one small flaw with what the other person is saying and then use that flaw to demonstrate that obviously everything else must be wrong as well.

The goal of listening must be to suspend your judgment and really attempt to be present enough to accurately interpret the message being sent by the other person. When we listen in this highly empathic way, we are often able to see things from the other person’s point-of-view, which could help us come to a better-negotiated outcome in the long run.

Step 4: Communicate

Lastly, but certainly not least, we communicate with the other person. Notice that Cahn and Abigail (2014) put communication as the last part of the STLC model because it’s the hardest one to do effectively during a conflict if the first three are not done correctly. When we communicate during a conflict, we must be hyper-aware of our nonverbal behavior (eye movement, gestures, posture, etc.). Nothing will kill a message faster than when it’s accompanied by bad nonverbal behavior. For example, rolling one’s eyes while another person is speaking is not an effective way to engage in conflict. One of our coauthors used to work with two women who clearly despised one another. They would never openly say something negative about the other person publicly, but in meetings, one would roll her eyes and make these non-word sounds of disagreement. The other one would just smile, slow her speech, and look in the other woman’s direction. Everyone around the conference table knew exactly what was transpiring, yet no words needed to be uttered at all.

During a conflict, it’s important to be assertive and stand up for your ideas without becoming verbally aggressive. Conversely, you have to be open to someone else’s use of assertiveness as well without having to tolerate verbal aggression. We often end up using mediators to help call people on the carpet when they communicate in a fashion that is verbally aggressive or does not further the conflict itself. As Cahn and Abigail (2014) note, “People who are assertive with one another have the greatest chance of achieving mutual satisfaction and growth in their relationship.”

 

---

References

Bloch, L., Haase, C. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2014). Emotion regulation predicts marital satisfaction: More than a wives’ tale. Emotion, 14(1), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034272

Cahn D. D., & Abigail, R. A. (2014). Managing conflict through communication (5th ed.). Pearson Education.

French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Institute for Social Research.

McCroskey, J. C., & Wheeless, L. R. (1976). An introduction to human communication. Allyn & Bacon.

Raven, B. H. (2008). The bases of power and the power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 8, 1-22.

Rosenberg, M. B. (2003). Nonviolent communication: A language of life (2nd ed.). Puddle Dancer Press.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185-211.

Sillars, A. L., Coletti, S., Parry, D., & Rogers, M. (1982). Coding verbal conflict tactics: Nonverbal and perceptual correlates of the ‘avoidance-competitive-cooperative’ distinction. Human Communication Research, 9(1), 83-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1982.tb00685.x

Simons, H. W. (1972). Persuasion in social conflicts: A critique of prevailing conceptions and a framework for future research. Speech Monographs, 39(4), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637757209375763

Wrench, J. S., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2008). Human communication in everyday life: Explanations and applications. Allyn & Bacon.

Yellowstone National Park Staff. (2015, February 15). Why do geysers erupt? Retrieved from: https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/geysers-erupt

Images

Image1: Avoiders. Upset young Indian couple after conflict. Ketut Subiyanto. 2020. CC BY 4.0.

Image 2: Battlers. Man and Woman wearing brown leather jackets. Vera Arsic. 2018. CC BY 4.0.

Image 3: Collaborate. Photo of women talking while sitting. Fauxels. 2019. CC BY 4.0.