Conflict is a normal and natural part of life. However, learning how to manage conflict in our interpersonal relationships is very important for long-term success in those relationships. This chapter looks at how conflict functions and provide several strategies for managing interpersonal conflict.

Understanding Conflict

For our purposes, it is necessary to differentiate a conflict from a disagreement.¹ A disagreement is a difference of opinion and often occurs during an argument, or a verbal exchange between two or more people who have differing opinions on a given subject or subjects. It’s important to realize that arguments are not conflicts, but if they become verbally aggressive, they can quickly turn into conflicts. One factor that ultimately can help determine if an argument will escalate into a conflict is an individual’s tolerance for disagreement. James McCroskey and colleagues defined tolerance for disagreement as whether an individual can openly discuss differing opinions without feeling personally attacked or confronted.^2,3 People that have a high tolerance for disagreement can easily discuss opinions with pretty much anyone and realize that arguing is perfectly normal and, for some, even entertaining. People that have a low tolerance for disagreement feel personally attacked any time someone is perceived as devaluing their opinion. From an interpersonal perspective, understanding someone’s tolerance for disagreement can help in deciding if arguments will be perceived as the other as attacks that could lead to verbally aggressive conflicts. However, not all conflict is necessarily verbally aggressive nor destructive.

The term “conflict” is actually very difficult to define. Simplistically, conflict is an interactive process occurring when 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 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.

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. 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.⁴ Let’s look at each of these in this section.

Perspective 1: Conflict Disrupts Working Systems

The first major perspective of conflict was proposed by McCroskey and Wheeless who described conflict as a negative phenomenon in interpersonal relationships:

Conflict between people can be viewed as the opposite or antithesis of affinity. In this sense, interpersonal conflict is the breaking down of attraction and the development of repulsion, the dissolution of perceived homophily (similarity) and the increased perception of incompatible differences, the loss of perceptions of credibility and the development of disrespect. ⁶

From this perspective, conflict is something inherently destructive. McCroskey and Richmond went further and argued that conflict is characterized by antagonism, distrust, hostility, and suspicion.⁷

This negative view of conflict differentiates itself from a separate term, disagreement, which is simply a difference of opinion between two or more people or groups of people. Richmond and McCroskey note that there are two types of disagreements: substantive and procedural.⁸ A substantive disagreement is a disagreement that people have about a specific topic or issue. Basically, if you and your best friend want to go eat at two different restaurants for dinner, then you’re engaging in a substantive disagreement. On the other hand, procedural disagreements are “concerned with procedure, how a decision should be reached or how a policy should be implemented.”⁹ So, if your disagreement about restaurant choice switches to a disagreement on how to make a choice (flipping a coin vs. rock-paper-scissors), then you’ve switched into a procedural disagreement.

In this view, conflict is a disagreement plus negative affect; not only do you disagree with someone else, you don’t like the other person. It’s the combination of a disagreement and dislike that causes a mere disagreement to turn into a conflict. Ultimately, conflict is a product of how one communicates this dislike of another person during the disagreement. People in some relationships end up saying very nasty things to one another during a disagreement because their affinity for the other person has diminished. When conflict is allowed to continue and escalate, it “can be likened to an ugly, putrid, decaying, pus-filled sore.”¹⁰

From this perspective, conflicts are ultimately only manageable; whereas, disagreements can be solved. Although a disagreement is the cornerstone of all conflicts, most disagreements don’t turn into conflicts because there is an affinity between the two people engaged in the disagreement.

Perspective 2: Conflict is a Normal Part of Human Communication

The second perspective of the concept of conflict is very different from the first one. Cahn and Abigail contend conflict is a normal, inevitable part of life.¹¹ In this view, conflict is one of the foundational building blocks of interpersonal relationships. One can even ask if it’s possible to grow in a relationship without conflict. Managing and overcoming conflict makes a relationship stronger and healthier. Ideally, when interpersonal dyads engage in conflict management (or conflict resolution), they will reach a solution that is mutually beneficial for both parties. In this manner, conflict can help people seek better, healthier outcomes within their interactions.

In this view, conflict is neither good nor bad, but it’s a tool that can be used for constructive or destructive purposes. Conflict can be very beneficial and healthy for a relationship. Let’s look at how conflict is beneficial for individuals and relationships:

• Conflict helps people find common ground.
• Conflict helps people learn how to manage conflict more effectively for the future.
• Conflict provides the opportunity to learn about the other person(s).
• Conflict can lead to creative solutions to problems.
• Confronting conflict allows people to engage in an open and honest discussion, which can build relationship trust.
• Conflict encourages people to grow both as humans and in their communication skills.
• Conflict can help people become more assertive and less aggressive.
• Conflict can strengthen individuals’ ability to manage their emotions.
• Conflict lets individuals set limits in relationships.
• Conflict lets us practice our communication skills.

When one approaches conflict from this vantage point, conflict can be seen as a helpful resource in interpersonal relationships. However, both parties must agree to engage in prosocial conflict management strategies for this to work effectively.

Interpersonal Conflict

According to Cahn and Abigail, 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. ¹²

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.”¹³ 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. We may have disagreements and arguments with all kinds of strangers, but those don’t rise to the level of interpersonal conflicts.

Differing Goals, Differing Means to the Same End

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.”¹⁴ 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.

Negative Effects When Unaddressed

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

Role of Urgency in Resolving Conflict

Lastly, there must be some sense of urgency to resolve the conflict within the relationship. Conflict must get to the point where it needs attention, and a decision must be made or an outcome decided upon, or else. Conflict can escalate if it is not resolved. Indeed, 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, 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.¹⁵

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.

Emotions, Feelings, and Needs in Conflict

Emotions and feelings relate to harmony and discord in a relationship, so it’s important to differentiate between ethe two. Emotions are our biophysical reactions to stimuli in the outside environment. This definition assumes emotions can be objectively measured by blood flow, brain activity, skin conductance, 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 1 breaks down the differences between the two concepts.

Table 1 Differentiating Emotions and Feelings

It’s important to understand that we are all emotional beings. Being emotional is an inherent part of being a human. That’s why we should avoid phrases like “don’t feel that way” or “they have no right to feel that way.” When we negate someone else’s emotions, we are negating that person as an individual and taking away their right to emotional responses. At the same time, though, no one else can make you “feel” a specific way. Our emotions are our emotions. They are how we interpret and cope with life. A person may set up a context where you experience an emotion, but you are the one who is still experiencing that emotion and allowing yourself to experience that emotion. If you don’t like “feeling” a specific way, then change it. 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.

Other research has demonstrated that handling negative emotions during conflicts within a marriage (especially on the part of the wife) can lead to faster de-escalations of conflicts and faster conflict mediation between spouses.¹⁶ Our emotions often (but not always) translate into feelings.

Emotional Awareness

Some people are better at recognizing and managing their emotions than others, we call this emotional awareness. Emotional awareness, or an individual’s ability to clearly express, in words, what they are feeling and why, is an extremely important factor in effective interpersonal communication. Unfortunately, our emotional vocabulary is often quite limited. One extreme version of of not having an emotional vocabulary is called alexithymia, “a general deficit in emotional vocabulary—the ability to identify emotional feelings, differentiate emotional states from physical sensations, communicate feelings to others, and process emotion in a meaningful way.”¹⁷ Furthermore, there are many people who can accurately differentiate emotional states but lack the actual vocabulary for a wide range of different emotions. For some people, their emotional vocabulary may consist of good, bad, angry, and fine. Learning how to communicate one’s emotions is very important for effective interpersonal relationships.¹⁸ First, it’s important to distinguish between our emotional states and how we interpret an emotional state the feelings that ensue. For example, you can feel sad or bitter, which may prompt you to feel alienated. Your sadness and bitterness may lead you to perceive yourself as alienated, but alienation is a perception of one’s self and not an actual emotional state.

“You” Statements Reveal How We Talk Matters

According to Marshall Rosenberg, the father of nonviolent communication, “You” statements ultimately are moralistic judgments where we imply the wrongness or badness of another person and the way they have behaved.¹⁹ When we make moralistic judgments about others, we tend to deny responsibility for our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Remember, when it comes to feelings, no one can “make” you feel a specific way. We choose the feelings we inhabit; we do not inhabit the feelings that choose us. When we make moralistic judgments and deny responsibility, we end up creating and perpetuating cycles of defensiveness where your individual needs are not going to be met by your relational partner. Behind every negative emotion is a need not being fulfilled, and when we start blaming others, those needs will keep getting unfilled in the process. Often this lack of need fulfillment will result in us demanding someone fulfill our need or face blame or punishment. For example, “if you go hang out with your friends tonight, I’m going to hurt myself and it will your fault.” In this simple sentence, we see someone who disapproves of another’s behaviors and threatens to blame their relational partner for the individual’s behavior. In highly volatile relationships, this constant blame cycle can become very detrimental, and no one’s needs are getting met.

If you have heard about “you” statements it’s likely you’ve also heard about one solution to them: Using “I” statements. “I” statements focus on articulating your feelings and emotions. However, just observing behavior and stating how you feel only gets you part of the way there because you’re still not describing your need.

Needs and Conflict

When we talk about the idea of “needing” something, we are not talking about this strictly in terms of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, though those are all entirely appropriate needs. At the same time, relational needs are generally not rewards like tangible items or money. Instead, Rosenberg categorizes basic needs that we all have falling into the categories: autonomy, celebration, play, spiritual communion, physical nurturance, integrity, and interdependence (Table 2). As you can imagine, any time these needs are not being met, you will reach out to get them fulfilled. As such, when we communicate about our feelings, they are generally tied to an unmet or fulfilled need. For example, you could say, “I feel dejected when you yell at me because I need to be respected.” In this sentence, you are identifying your need, observing the behavior, and labeling the need. Notice that there isn’t judgment associated with identifying one’s needs.

Table 2 Needs

Gottman’s Four Horseman of the Relational Apocalypse

In the study of interpersonal communication, understanding conflict and its resolution is crucial. Psychologist John Gottman identified four negative communication patterns that predict relationship failure, which he termed the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.” These behaviors are Criticism, Contempt, Defensiveness, and Stonewalling. Gottman’s research, based on decades of observing couples, provides a framework for recognizing and addressing destructive patterns in relationships. ⁵¹

Criticism

Criticism involves attacking a partner’s character or personality rather than focusing on specific behaviors. It often begins with phrases like “You always” or “You never,” making it personal and generalized rather than situational. This pattern can erode the foundation of respect and understanding in a relationship. Criticism is prevalent in many relationships and is linked to increased relational dissatisfaction and the emergence of other negative behaviors. ⁵¹

Example: “You never think about how your actions affect others. You’re so selfish.”

Avoiding Criticism: Use a gentle startup by expressing feelings and stating a positive need. For instance, “I feel hurt when plans change without notice. Can we communicate better about our schedules?”

Contempt

Contempt is the most damaging of the Four Horsemen and involves expressing disdain or superiority. This can be through sarcasm, name-calling, eye-rolling, or hostile humor. Contempt conveys disrespect and creates a toxic emotional climate. According to Gottman, contempt is the single greatest predictor of divorce. Couples who exhibit contempt are more likely to divorce than those who do not. ⁵² Additionally, contemptuous behavior can negatively impact the immune system, with couples engaging in such exchanges experiencing higher stress levels and greater susceptibility to illness. ⁵¹

Example: “Oh, you’re tired? You do nothing all day, unlike me.”

Avoiding Contempt: Build a culture of appreciation and respect by regularly expressing gratitude and acknowledging your partner’s efforts and qualities.

Defensiveness

Defensiveness occurs when one responds to perceived criticism by counter-attacking or playing the victim. This behavior escalates conflicts rather than resolving them and often involves making excuses or denying responsibility. Defensiveness is strongly correlated with conflict escalation, perpetuating cycles of argumentation and misunderstanding. ⁵² Couples who frequently exhibit defensiveness are less likely to resolve conflicts effectively, leading to prolonged disputes and increased relational strain.

Example: “It’s not my fault we’re late. You always take forever to get ready.”

Avoiding Defensiveness: Accept responsibility, even if it’s partial. Respond with, “I see why you’re upset. Let’s figure out how we can manage our time better.”

Stonewalling

Stonewalling happens when one partner withdraws from the interaction, shutting down and refusing to engage. This can be a response to feeling overwhelmed, but it leads to a lack of resolution and emotional distance. Stonewalling is more commonly observed in men than in women, as men are more likely to withdraw during conflict to self-soothe and avoid emotional flooding.⁵³ It is associated with increased physiological stress markers, such as elevated heart rate and blood pressure, which can further impede effective communication and conflict resolution. ⁵¹

Example: One partner stops responding, avoids eye contact, and remains silent during an argument.

Avoiding Stonewalling: Take a break to calm down and then return to the conversation. Practice self-soothing techniques and agree on a time to revisit the discussion constructively.

Longitudinal research by Gottman and colleagues has demonstrated that the presence of the Four Horsemen in early stages of marriage is predictive of marital stability or instability over time. Couples exhibiting high levels of these negative behaviors early on are more likely to divorce within the first six years of marriage. ⁵³ Interventions aimed at reducing the Four Horsemen and promoting positive communication behaviors have been shown to improve relationship satisfaction and decrease the likelihood of divorce. Couples who learn to replace criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling with healthier communication strategies report higher levels of marital satisfaction. ⁵¹

Maintaining a positive-to-negative interaction ratio is essential for the health of relationships. Gottman’s research indicates that successful relationships generally maintain a ratio of 5:1—five positive interactions for every negative one. This ratio is crucial for creating a positive emotional climate and mitigating the impact of negative interactions. In contrast, couples in distress often exhibit a ratio of 0.8:1, indicating more negative than positive interactions. ⁵¹

Conflict Management Strategies

Many researchers have attempted to understand how humans handle conflict with one another. Thomas’s model focuses on the behavior individuals engage in when confronted with conflict. ⁵⁴ Parties to a conflict attempt to implement their resolution mode by competing or accommodating in the hope of resolving problems. A major task here is determining how best to proceed strategically. That is, what tactics will the party use to attempt to resolve the conflict? Thomas has identified five modes for conflict resolution: (1) competing, (2) collaborating, (3) compromising, (4) avoiding, and (5) accommodating (see Table 3).

The choice of an appropriate conflict resolution mode depends to a great extent on the situation and the goals of the party  (see Figure 1). According to this model, each party must decide the extent to which it is interested in satisfying its own concerns—called assertiveness—and the extent to which it is interested in helping satisfy the opponent’s concerns—called cooperativeness. Assertiveness can range from assertive to unassertive on one continuum, and cooperativeness can range from uncooperative to cooperative on the other continuum.

Once the parties have determined their desired balance between the two competing concerns—either consciously or unconsciously—the resolution strategy emerges. For example, if a union negotiator feels confident she can win on an issue that is of primary concern to union members (e.g., wages), a direct competition mode may be chosen (see the upper left-hand corner of Figure 1). On the other hand, when the union is indifferent to an issue or when it actually supports management’s concerns (e.g., plant safety), we would expect an accommodating or collaborating mode (on the right-hand side of the figure).