Conflict resolution is understood as the ways people use to end conflicts peacefully and avoid punishment. Group members work to solve disagreements by sharing information about their different goals or beliefs with others in the group, such as their reasons for thinking certain things, and by talking together to find solutions. The ways conflicts are resolved often match the ways conflicts begin. Cognitive resolution refers to how people think about a conflict, including their beliefs, views, and attitudes. Emotional resolution involves how people feel about a conflict, such as the emotions they experience. Behavioral resolution describes how people act during a conflict, such as their actions or choices. Many methods exist to address conflicts, including negotiation, mediation, mediation-arbitration, diplomacy, and creative peacebuilding.

Definition & Characteristics

Communication can be seen as practical or about exchanging things. There is a difference between paraconflict, which uses symbols or signs, and conflict, which involves actions that can be seen. Symbolic conflict is either helpful or harmful, depending on how a person feels about it. In contrast, action conflict is helpful or harmful based on how it works within a group or system. Ruben believed communication is ongoing and unavoidable. Conflict happens when there are differences between what a system needs or can do and what the environment needs or can do. Conflict is important for a system to work because communication must change constantly to adapt. There is a strong connection between being able to adapt and the presence of conflict.

Models

Ruble and Thomas rearranged the managerial grid model to focus on conflict resolution. They changed the classification system to match research findings about conflict behaviors that go beyond simply choosing between cooperation and competition. The X-axis shows how much people work together to reach shared goals. The Y-axis shows how strongly people push for their own goals.

Thomas and Kilmann added a rating system to the grid that describes five behavior styles. When people push strongly for their goals but their goals do not match, they act competitively. When people push strongly for goals that match, they work together to solve the conflict. When goals are not in direct conflict, people may avoid the issue. When people do not push strongly for their goals but work together, they may give in to others. When people do not push strongly for their goals or work together, they may try to find a middle ground.

Not all conflict styles work well in every situation. For example, working together to solve a conflict may not help if the goals of both sides are completely different and cannot change. Each style has strengths and weaknesses. The best style depends on the situation.

The dual concern model explains how people choose to handle conflicts based on two ideas: concern for their own needs (assertiveness) and concern for others' needs (empathy). People balance their own needs with others' needs in different ways. The combination of these two ideas leads to different conflict resolution styles. The model describes five styles people may use depending on whether they focus more on their own goals or others' goals.

The conflict resolution curve is a tool that helps find peaceful solutions by encouraging people to work together. Forcing a solution might cause more conflicts later.

The conflict resolution curve (CRC) divides conflict styles into two groups: those who act aggressively and those who act more willing to compromise. On this curve, both sides agree on how bad or good the other side is. Finding points where both sides can agree is important before peace can be reached. If one side is certain about being aggressive, the curve does not exist in reality, and this could lead to serious harm for both sides.

The curve explains how peaceful actions helped end oppressive governments and sometimes changed how leaders govern. This method has also been used to study conflicts and negotiations on the Korean Peninsula.

In the third step, the real conflict between people is identified, and both sides try to understand each other's needs. This requires learning about and respecting the values and reasons behind others' actions. According to Friedemann Schulz von Thun's four-sides model, every statement has two parts: the content (what is said) and the relationship (how it is said). Both parts include needs and interests. Balancing these differences helps create a solution that benefits both sides.

Christopher W. Moore's "Circle of Conflict" model, created in 1986, lists five causes of conflict:

• Data: incomplete or misunderstood information.
• Relationship: poor communication or personal problems.
• Value: conflicting beliefs or priorities.
• Structure: problems in organizations, power issues, or lack of resources.
• Interests: needs, desires, or goals that are not met.

Conflicts can have many causes. Finding the cause can help solve the conflict.

Nonviolent Communication (NVC) came from ideas used in therapy. It is used in therapy, workshops, and everyday life to improve relationships and reduce stress. Communities sometimes use NVC's ideas. NVC has been used in schools, workplaces, and communities. Some studies show it helps people feel more empathetic and improve relationships, but more research is needed to fully understand its effects.

Theories

Relational dialectics is a theory about how people communicate in close personal relationships. It explains the challenges and balance between opposite needs or desires. This theory was created by Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery in 1988. It says that communication between people in a relationship happens because of ongoing tensions between opposing wants. These tensions are called dialectics, which are feelings of wanting two opposite things at the same time.

The main ideas of relational dialectics are:

• Contradictions – This means that people can have opposite needs. For example, someone might want to be close to a partner but also need time alone.
• Totality – This happens when opposite needs come together to create balance. A relationship reaches totality when contradictions are managed and the relationship is stable.
• Process – This refers to how relationships change over time. Social processes, like communication, happen repeatedly and shape the relationship.
• Praxis – This is about how people use experience and communication to solve problems in a relationship. It means making decisions that work even when needs or wants are different.

Thomas Schelling used game theory to study situations where the outcome is not zero-sum (a situation where one person’s gain is another’s loss).

• Conflict – This is a competition between people. Rational behavior in this competition depends on how people judge and see the situation.
• Strategy – This is about predicting actions based on careful calculations of benefits and values.
• Cooperation – This is temporary because people’s interests can change over time.

I. William Zartman’s Ripeness theory explains when peace talks might begin in a conflict. A "ripe moment" is a necessary condition for peace negotiations to happen. This moment requires two things: (1) a stalemate, where neither side can win and continuing the conflict hurts both; and (2) a way out, where a solution exists that allows peace.

Without these conditions, Zartman says that people in conflict may not want to negotiate or any peace agreement may not last. Using game theory, Zartman says that a stalemate and a way to escape it change conflicts from a prisoner’s dilemma (a situation where both sides lose if they don’t cooperate) to a chicken game (a situation where one side risks more than the other). The success of peace agreements depends on a mutually enticing opportunity (MEO) and solving serious problems. Changes in how people see the costs and benefits of conflict can end long-standing disputes, like The Troubles. Some critics say the Ripeness theory is not always accurate in predicting when peace will happen.

One idea in peace and conflict studies is conflict resolution mechanisms. These are methods used by people in conflict to solve problems. They can be formal or informal. Wallensteen studied these mechanisms and identified seven ways to resolve conflicts:

• Shift in priorities – One side may focus on different goals, which can create new ways to solve the conflict.
• Dividing the resource – Both sides may agree to compromise, like splitting something in half.
• Horse-trading – One side gets what it wants on one issue, while the other side gets what it wants on a different issue.
• Shared control – Both sides may agree to manage a problem together, either permanently or temporarily.
• Third-party control – A neutral group, like a court or mediator, may take control of the problem.
• Arbitration or legal procedures – A third party, like a lawyer or court, may help solve the conflict.
• Delaying issues – Some problems may be addressed later if conditions change over time.

Nicholson says a conflict is resolved when the differences between what people want and what they do are fixed. Negotiation is a key part of resolving conflicts. Processes that aim to use conflict positively must avoid letting it become harmful. Conflicts can be solved through talks, like mediations or bargaining, or through violence, like wars. Some solutions are handled by courts or lawyers, who act as professionals to resolve problems. Many conflicts can be solved without becoming worse. If the people in conflict cannot solve the problem themselves, others may help.

The goal of conflict resolution is to find a solution that works for everyone involved. This can happen through cooperation or by letting an authority, like a court or parent, decide. Unresolved conflicts can cause frustration and aggression, leading to costs, damage, and blame.

Praxis

The first step in solving a disagreement is usually calming the situation. This can mean stopping fighting or reducing strong, open actions that hurt others. When groups are working together or competing, a strategy where each group responds in kind (like "an eye for an eye") can help build trust. To help someone change their position in a conflict, it is important to create "face-saving bridges." This can include talking about changes that have already happened since the conflict started or discussing fair rules that both sides can agree on.

If someone is acting in a way that makes the situation worse, it is best not to react right away. This gives them time to calm down, which makes it easier to talk and avoid making the conflict worse. Ways to reduce anger include saying sorry, using humor, taking a break, following common rules, creating more distance (like switching to online conversations), or explaining that the other person did not mean to escalate the conflict. After the situation is calmer, the problem behavior can be discussed in a peaceful way. It is also helpful to acknowledge any correct points the other person made. Another method is using a "feedback sandwich," where a positive comment is given before and after pointing out the issue.

When someone avoids the conflict, it is important to ask more questions and pay attention to how they are involved in solving the problem and what they care about, such as being respected or having control. During the conversation, remind them that solving the conflict helps both sides meet their needs.

The next step is to start communication between the people in conflict, often with the help of a mediator. This process is explained in the book Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury from 1981. Another method is the moderation cycle created by Josef W. Seifert. Other techniques include using "I-messages" with active listening (as taught by Thomas Gordon) or nonviolent communication (as taught by Marshall B. Rosenberg) to keep the discussion focused on the problem, not the person.

Friedrich Glasl’s model of conflict escalation has nine stages, and six strategies are used to manage conflicts at each stage:
– Levels 1-3 (hardening, polarization, and debate): Moderation
– Levels 3-5 (actions instead of words, concern about image, and coalitions): Process support
– Levels 4-6 (concern about image, loss of face, and threatening strategies): Socio-therapeutic process support
– Levels 5-7 (loss of face, threatening strategies, and limited destructive actions): Conciliation/mediation
– Levels 6-8 (threatening strategies, limited destructive actions, and fragmentation): Arbitration/judicial proceedings
– Levels 7-9 (limited destructive actions, fragmentation, and moving toward disaster): Power intervention

The IBR method, developed by Fisher and Ury in Getting to Yes, comes from the Harvard Negotiation Project. It has four main steps:
1. Separate people from the problem.
2. Focus on interests, not positions.
3. Find solutions that benefit both sides.
4. Use fair and objective standards.

The Harvard Negotiation Project helped create the Program on Negotiation (PON) at Harvard Law School in 1983.

When one person in a conflict strongly pushes their own needs despite the other side’s resistance, this is called "competing." This might mean pushing one idea over another or refusing to give in. Competing can be useful if other methods fail, if someone needs to protect their rights, or if a quick solution is needed (like stopping a life-threatening situation). However, competing can harm relationships, make conflicts worse if the other side responds the same way, and cause stress. Research shows that using forceful methods can lead to long-term health problems from stress.

Collaboration means working with the other person to find a solution that benefits both sides. This approach sees conflict as a chance to create a win-win result. It involves understanding the other person’s needs and finding a solution that meets everyone’s concerns. Collaboration is best when long-term relationships are important, when people trust each other, or when many people are involved. While this method can reduce stress and improve health, it may take more time and effort than other methods.

A compromise is a solution that partially satisfies both sides. This happens when people talk and try to understand each other’s views. Compromising is useful for less important issues or when people do not know each other well. It can be faster than other methods, but the result may not be fully satisfying. If not handled well, compromising can lead to both sides being unhappy or not building trust over time.

Avoiding means not addressing the conflict, putting it off, or walking away. This is suitable for small issues or when bigger problems need attention. However, avoiding can lead to problems being ignored and may not help solve the conflict in the long run.

Between organizations

Organizations often work together in different ways, such as through partnerships, joint projects, or shared networks. These relationships can sometimes lead to disagreements. Scholars in business and management have studied how these disagreements are handled. They have linked the type of conflict, such as conflicts about honesty or skills, to the methods used to resolve them, like negotiation or repairing damaged relationships. They have also noted that factors like the type of agreement between groups, the level of trust, or differences in power can influence how conflicts are managed.

Conflict management involves dealing with ongoing, difficult conflicts over a long period. It includes many ways people address disagreements, such as speaking out about what they believe is right or wrong, or using actions like gossip, ridicule, or even legal methods. The specific methods used in a situation can often be predicted by looking at the social structure or relationships involved.

Conflict management is different from conflict resolution. For a conflict to happen, there must be clear reasons and ways it is expressed. Conflicts are often connected to earlier problems. Resolution means ending a disagreement with the approval of one or both sides, while management focuses on handling the conflict over time, even if it never fully ends. Conflict transformation, which is different from both, aims to change how the involved parties view the conflict.

When personal conflicts cause stress or reduce productivity, counseling can help. While few organizations can hire professional counselors, managers can learn to offer support through listening. Nondirective counseling, which involves listening carefully without giving advice, is a simple and effective method. It allows people to express their feelings and move toward solving problems.

Sometimes, simply talking through feelings with someone who listens and understands can reduce stress and help someone think more clearly. The nondirective approach is useful for managers to help coworkers or employees who are frustrated.

Other methods, which are more direct and detailed, can be used in certain situations. However, the strength of the nondirective approach is its simplicity and effectiveness. It avoids the need for managers to diagnose emotional issues, which requires special training. Listening with care and empathy is a common and helpful way to support people dealing with work-related challenges.

History

The field of conflict resolution began to develop in the middle of the 20th century. Experts and people who work in the field looked for ways to solve problems without using traditional methods that rely on power. For example, in wars, the study of how to resolve disagreements about land or government has been carefully studied.

According to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, war can happen between groups that disagree about something, such as land or government control. A group that takes part in a war must be a government or an organization that uses armed force to support its position in a conflict that happens within a country or between countries. Wars can end with a peace agreement, which is a formal agreement that addresses the disagreement by solving it completely or partially, or by explaining how to manage the disagreement.

A ceasefire is another type of agreement between groups in a war. Unlike a peace agreement, a ceasefire only controls how groups behave during the conflict and does not fix the problem that caused the war.

Peacekeeping efforts may be used to stop violence when solving disagreements. In the last century, political theorists started developing the idea of a global peace system that uses social and political actions to prevent war and promote world peace. The Blue Peace approach, created by Strategic Foresight Group, helps countries work together on shared water resources to reduce the risk of war and support long-term development.

The high costs of war have led to more use of third-party experts who help resolve conflicts. Relief and development organizations now include peace-building specialists in their teams. Many international groups have started hiring people trained in analyzing and solving conflicts. This growth has created opportunities for conflict resolution experts to work in different places, such as businesses, courts, government offices, nonprofits, and schools around the world. Democracy helps improve conflict resolution.

Historian Louis Kriesberg explains that early work focused on understanding conflict as a process that changes over time, not a single event. Researchers later studied how conflicts grow worse, how they can be calmed, and how non-violent solutions can be used. After World War II, research from psychology, sociology, and political science helped create conflict resolution as a separate field of study. Organizations like the International Center for Peace and Development were created because of this field’s growth. For example, cultural issues are complex and require careful study of conflict resolution models to reach solutions that benefit all sides.

Conflict resolution, both as a job and an area of study, pays close attention to cultural traditions. In Western countries like Canada and the United States, successful conflict resolution often involves helping people talk, solve problems, and create agreements that meet their needs. In these cases, conflict resolvers aim to find solutions that satisfy everyone involved.

In many non-Western countries, such as Afghanistan, Vietnam, and China, finding solutions that benefit all parties is also important. However, the ways to reach these solutions may differ. In some cultures, direct communication between people in conflict can be seen as rude and may worsen the situation. Instead, religious, tribal, or community leaders may be involved, or difficult messages may be shared through a third person. Suggestions might also be made through stories. Conflicts between cultures are often harder to resolve because people may have very different expectations and misunderstand each other easily.

The field of conflict resolution continues to grow, with new models and ideas, such as the "4-sides" or "circle of conflict" model, helping to solve conflicts from small disputes to large global problems.

In animals

Conflict resolution has been studied in animals other than humans, such as dogs, cats, monkeys, snakes, elephants, and primates. Aggression is more likely to happen between relatives or within a group than between different groups. After an argument, primates often become more affectionate toward each other instead of staying apart. This includes actions like grooming and touching. These behaviors help reduce stress, such as faster heartbeats, after conflicts. Many different primates and other group-living animals show various ways to make up after disagreements. Fixing conflicts that could harm relationships within a group is important for survival. This is especially true for animals with stable social groups, strong individual connections, and the possibility of fighting within the group. Researchers study how these reconciliations help manage relationships and how these relationships might be affected by differences in value or biological market effects. These findings challenge earlier ideas, such as the belief that aggression mainly creates distance between individuals (a theory by Konrad Lorenz), which seems more true in conflicts between groups than within them.

Scientists are also studying reconciliation in animals other than primates. Before recent years, most information about this behavior in non-primates was based on stories or observations, not numbers. Peaceful actions after conflicts were noted as early as the 1960s, but the first clear mention of reconciliation in non-primates was in 1993 when Rowell observed it in wild sheep. Since then, reconciliation has been seen in spotted hyenas, lions, bottlenose dolphins, dwarf mongooses, domestic goats, domestic dogs, and recently in red-necked wallabies.

Further readings

• Coleman, Peter T. (2011). The Five Percent: Finding Solutions to Seemingly Impossible Conflicts. PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1-58648-921-2.
• Staniland, Paul (2021). Ordering Violence: Explaining Armed Group-state Relations from Conflict to Cooperation. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-1-5017-6110-2.