A study on 

human behavior has revealed that 90% of the population can be classified

into four basic personality types: Optimistic, Pessimistic, Trusting and Envious. However, the
latter of the four types, Envious, is the most common, with 30% compared to 20% for each of
the other groups.

The study of personality has a broad and varied history in psychology with an abundance of
theoretical traditions. The major theories include dispositional (trait) perspective,
psychodynamic, humanistic, biological, behaviorist, evolutionary, and social
learning perspective.

Three fundamental types of behaviour can be distinguished: the purely practical, the

theoretical-practical, and the purely theoretical. These three types of behaviour have three
different reasons: the first a determining reason, the second a motivating reason, and the third
a supporting reason.

What Is Human Behavior? Theories, Definition, And

Types
By: Gabrielle Benitez

Updated August 28, 2020

Medically Reviewed By: Lauren Guilbeault

Human behavior is an inherently complex subject matter which pertains to the manner and reasons
behind people's actions. Of course, there are countless theories associated with human behavior
and various types of conduct. Understanding human behavior is very important in society; the
knowledge sheds light on patterns, the reasons people make certain decisions, and much more. Of
course, the more one understands about human behavior, the better they can position themselves
and comprehend how others see, interpret, and adapt to their various environments.
Source: pixabay

Theories Of Human Behavior

Of theories about human behavior, one of the most prevalent ones of all is that of conditioning.
Conditioning occurs when someone is groomed into behaving in a certain manner. There are two
main types of conditioning, and different people may be more impacted by one form over the other.
Of course, conditioning human beings to behave in a certain way can have prompt ethical or moral
debates, especially when someone is conditioned to act in a manner which fails to suit their best
interests. Then, others maintain that human beings are all inherently programmed to behave in one
way or another.

Classical Conditioning

Classical conditioning occurs when someone comes to associate specific stimuli with various
outcomes. In turn, this manner of conditioning often encourages people to behave in ways which will
bring them joy and pleasure. For instance, if someone finds that they tend to do well when they
follow their instincts as opposed to following the rules, they are likelier to be a nonconformist and
take risks. Classical conditioning does not always have to occur from the actions or manipulations of
a specific individual. Sometimes, this type of conditioning happens from society or from the
environment in which someone is routinely exposed to.

Operant Conditioning

Quite simply, operant conditioning controls human behavior via positive and negative reinforcement.
A person who finds themselves constantly in trouble with the law when they break certain rules
typically learns to associate rule-breaking with legal issues. Likewise, an individual who regularly
studies for exams and aces them comes to associate studying with positive grades. When it comes
to human behavior, people tend to steer clear of what causes them pain and gravitate towards
pleasure and personal satisfaction. These are some of how conditioning, both classical and operant,
is theorized to impact human behavior.

Cognition

In the realm of human behavior, cognition is a very prevalent theory which maintains that human
behavior is determined by an individual's thoughts, inner judgment, personal motivations, etc. This
particular theory places great emphasis on people's internal states and maintains that what a person
is feeling, thinking, or battling will eventually impact the behavior which the world sees. Of course,
cognitive theories which pertain to human behavior are heavily supported by mental health studies,
psychological studies, and more. Much of what exists within the tangible, external world today
originally existed within an individual's mind.

Types Of Human Behavior

Many theories of human behavior are widely used and accepted in today's world. Understanding
these theories makes a difference, but so does understanding the types of human behavior and the
factors which drive them. As a unique species, human beings will collectively and individually fall into
different or even multiple categories. Certain people may be inclined in one direction, whereas
others are driven by something else entirely. Nevertheless, the following information is required to
understand what human behavior is true.

Personality-Based
Source: pixabay

How people behave is largely impacted by their personality. Some individuals may be patient and
easygoing, while others are impatient and hot-headed. In most cases, you cannot tell someone's
personality right off the bat. Usually, it takes time to get to know them, interact with them, and truly
get a feel for what you're dealing with. Some personalities are friendlier than others, and there are a
series of factors which can shape or alter someone's personality. Culture, environment, the peer can
influence an individual's personality, and so much more.

Interest-Based

A person's level of interest significantly plays a role in their human behavior. Interest can determine
whether or not someone behaves in a way which is not consistent with who they are. Furthermore,
interest often determines whether or not someone takes risks or pursues a goal. More often than
not, when someone is interested in a person or subject, they are more likely to devote attention than
if they were not interested. Gauging a person's interest in something can be a very great way of
predicting or theorizing forthcoming human behavior.

Attitude-Based

Like personality and interest, individual attitude also deeply affects human behavior. Attitudes can be
right or wrong, by one's development or by outside influence. Nevertheless, there is no denying that
a person's attitude determines the choices they make, the way they interact with others, and their
general human behavior in a nutshell. A positive attitude can make someone more open and
receptive to a certain person or situation. Likewise, a negative attitude tends to cause individuals to
avoid or shut out what they view disfavorably.

Emotion-Based
Emotions are deeply relevant when it pertains to human behavior. So many actions and decisions in
life are emotionally charged, even when people don't realize this on the surface. A positive emotional
state can cause someone to be open-minded, more likely to take risks, and otherwise engage in
certain behaviors. Likewise, a negative emotional state can lead to destruction, isolation, or a
person's decision to withdraw. Virtually all manners of human behavior can be traced back to
emotions of some sort, even if additional factors are involved.

Human Behavior And Self-Control

A more thorough comprehension of human behavior has positively contributed to society on so

many levels. This is an undeniable fact, and yet, in spite of the definition, theories, and types of
human behavior, self-control is still very much relevant. How you behave always makes a difference
because when it's all said and done, you are accountable for your actions. Behaving well and
controlling yourself is very easy when everything is going well, and your back isn't against the wall.
However, behavior in the face of stress, worries, and challenges is often what turns out to be the
most defining.

Source: pixabay

Self-control matters because it determines whether or not you stay grounded even in the face of
adversity or tough times. Someone who lacks self-control will have a significantly harder time staying
out of trouble than someone who knows how to manage themselves. Exercising self-control doesn't
mean that you will never feel angry. It doesn't mean that your personality, interest levels, and
attitudes won't come into play; however, when you have self-control, you can manage these factors
instead of allowing them to manage you.

Consequences, whether positive or negative, are inevitable factors when it comes to human
behavior. The choices you make and how you choose to behave determine whether or not you
experience desirable or undesirable outcomes. Self-control is what allows you to manage your
behavior and avoid negative consequences which you don't want to be exposed to. There are
countless situations where people have looked back and either wished they'd exercised better self-
control or felt thankful that they did exercise self-control.

What If You Struggle With Your Human Behavior?

If you find yourself struggling with managing your behavior, then this could very well be a sign of a
deeper issue which needs to be addressed. Even when someone is feeling frustrated or under the
weather, there still tends to be a degree of self-control, which allows them to manage the choices
they make and how they interact with others.

Issues with personal human behavior could be indicative of unresolved issues or past trauma.
Sometimes, people find themselves on negative downwards spirals when they haven't dealt with
very important issues which have the power to impact their life. Unresolved trauma can impact
someone's personality, levels of interest, attitude, emotional state, and so much more. It's nothing to
mess around with, and the worst part is that many individuals are not consciously aware when these
adverse impacts are happening. All they can see is the symptoms of the problem, hence the inability
to manage their behavior.

If this is something which resonates with you, then signing up for online therapy with BetterHelp can
truly change your life for the better. Online therapy comes with multiple benefits; first and foremost,
you'll have access to a therapist regardless of who you are or where you live. Secondly, you'll have
the support system and professional guidance, which can provide insight into your situation. Finally,
by working with a therapist, you open yourself up to not only learning more about yourself as an
individual but also understanding important details which impact the quality of your life.

Source: pixabay

Regardless of who you are or what you may be going through, you deserve access to the best care
possible, and you deserve the opportunity to make the rest of your life the best of your life.
Conflict resolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

For other uses, see Conflict resolution (disambiguation).
For conflict resolution between editors of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Part of a series on

Psychology

 Outline
 History
 Subfields

Basic types[show]

Applied psychology[show]

Lists[show]

  Psychology portal

 v
 t
 e

Alternative dispute resolution

 or External dispute resolution

 Arbitration
 Conciliation
 Mediation
 Negotiation
 Collaborative law
 Conflict resolution
 Dispute resolution
 Lawyer-supported mediation
 Party-directed mediation
 Restorative justice

 v
 t
 e

Conflict resolution is conceptualized as the methods and processes involved in

facilitating the peaceful ending of conflict and retribution. Committed group members
attempt to resolve group conflicts by actively communicating information about their
conflicting motives or ideologies to the rest of group (e.g., intentions; reasons for holding
certain beliefs) and by engaging in collective negotiation.[1] Dimensions of resolution
typically parallel the dimensions of conflict in the way the conflict is processed.
Cognitive resolution is the way disputants understand and view the conflict, with beliefs,
perspectives, understandings and attitudes. Emotional resolution is in the way
disputants feel about a conflict, the emotional energy. Behavioral resolution is reflective
of how the disputants act, their behavior.[2] Ultimately a wide range of methods and
procedures for addressing conflict exist, including negotiation, mediation, mediation-
arbitration,[3] diplomacy, and creative peacebuilding.[4][5]
The term conflict resolution may also be used interchangeably with dispute resolution,
where arbitration and litigation processes are critically involved. The concept of conflict
resolution can be thought to encompass the use of nonviolent resistance measures by
conflicted parties in an attempt to promote effective resolution. [6]

Contents

 1Theories and models

o 1.1Conflict resolution curve

o 1.2Dual concern model

 o 1.3Relational Dialectics Theory (RDT)

o 1.4Strategy of Conflict

 2Conflict resolution in Peace and Conflict Studies

o 2.1Definition

o 2.2Conflict Resolution Mechanisms

 3Intrastate and interstate conflict resolution in practice

 4Conflict resolution in the workplace

o 4.1Fundamental strategies for conflict resolution

o 4.2Conflict resolution approaches

 5Conflict resolution between organizations

 6Conflict resolution in the classroom

o 6.1Steps to conflict resolution in the classroom

 7Other forms of conflict resolution

o 7.1Conflict management

o 7.2Counseling

 8Culture-based

 9In animals

 10Education

 11See also

o 11.1Organizations

 12Footnotes

 13References

 14Works cited

 15Further reading

 16External links
Theories and models[edit]
There is a plethora of different theories and models linked to the concept of conflict
resolution.
Conflict resolution curve[edit]
There are many examples of conflict resolution in history, and there has been a debate
about the ways to conflict resolution: whether it should be forced or peaceful. Conflict
resolution by peaceful means is generally perceived to be a better option. The conflict
resolution curve derived from an analytical model that offers a peaceful solution by
motivating conflicting entities.[7] Forced resolution of conflict might invoke another conflict
in the future.
Conflict resolution curve (CRC) separates conflict styles into two separate domains:
domain of competing entities and domain of accommodating entities(Image of CRC ).
There is a sort of agreement between targets and aggressors on this curve. Their
judgements of badness compared to goodness of each other are analogous on CRC.
So, arrival of all conflicting entities to some negotiable points on CRC is important
before peace building. CRC does not exist (i.e., singular) in reality if the chance of
aggression if the aggressor is certain. Under such circumstances it might lead to
apocalypse with mutual destruction. [8]
The curve explains why nonviolent struggles ultimately toppled repressive regimes from
power and sometimes forced leaders to change the nature of governance. Also, this
methodology has been applied to capture the conflict styles on the Korean Peninsula
and dynamics of negotiation processes.[9]
Dual concern model[edit]
The dual concern model of conflict resolution is a conceptual perspective that assumes
individuals’ preferred method of dealing with conflict is based on two underlying themes
or dimensions: concern for self (assertiveness) and concern for others (empathy).[1]
According to the model, group members balance their concern for satisfying personal
needs and interests with their concern for satisfying the needs and interests of others in
different ways. The intersection of these two dimensions ultimately leads individuals
towards exhibiting different styles of conflict resolution. [10] The dual model identifies five
with number four being the target to complete the cycle and illuminate the issue at
hand. Conflict resolution styles or strategies that individuals may use depend on their
dispositions toward pro-self or pro-social goals.
Avoidance conflict style
Characterized by joking, changing or avoiding the topic, or even denying that a problem
exists, strong dislike for following the rules the conflict avoidance style is used when an
individual has withdrawn in dealing with the other party, when one is uncomfortable with
conflict, or due to cultural contexts.[nb 1] During conflict, these avoiders adopt a “wait and
see” attitude, often allowing conflict to phase out on its own without any personal
involvement.[11] By neglecting to address high-conflict situations, avoiders risk allowing
problems to fester or spin out of control.
Yielding conflict style
In contrast, yielding, “accommodating”, smoothing or suppression conflict styles are
characterized by a high level of concern for others and a low level of concern for oneself.
This passive pro-social approach emerges when individuals derive personal satisfaction
from meeting the needs of others and have a general concern for maintaining stable,
positive social relationships.[1] When faced with conflict, individuals with a yielding conflict
style tend to harmonize into others’ demands out of respect for the social relationship.
[citation needed]

Competitive conflict style

The competitive, “fighting” or forcing conflict style maximizes individual assertiveness
(i.e., concern for self) and minimizes empathy (i.e., concern for others). Groups
consisting of competitive members generally enjoy seeking domination over others, and
typically see conflict as a “win or lose” predicament.[1] Fighters tend to force others to
accept their personal views by employing competitive power tactics (arguments, insults,
accusations or even violence) that foster intimidation.[12]
Conciliation conflict style
The conciliation, “compromising”, bargaining or negotiation conflict style is typical of
individuals who possess an intermediate level of concern for both personal and others’
outcomes. Compromisers value fairness and, in doing so, anticipate mutual give-and-
take interactions.[11] By accepting some demands put forth by others, compromisers
believe this agreeableness will encourage others to meet them halfway, thus promoting
conflict resolution.[13] This conflict style can be considered an extension of both “yielding”
and “cooperative” strategies.[1]
Cooperation conflict style
Characterized by an active concern for both pro-social and pro-self behavior,
the cooperation, integration, confrontation or problem-solving conflict style is typically
used when an individual has elevated interests in their own outcomes as well as in the
outcomes of others. During conflict, cooperators collaborate with others in an effort to
find an amicable solution that satisfies all parties involved in the conflict. Individuals
using this type of conflict style tend to be both highly assertive and highly empathetic.
[11]
 By seeing conflict as a creative opportunity, collaborators willingly invest time and
resources into finding a “win-win” solution.[1] According to the literature on conflict
resolution, a cooperative conflict resolution style is recommended above all others. This
resolution may be achieved by lowering the aggressor's guard while raising the ego.[14][15]
Relational Dialectics Theory (RDT)[edit]
RDT, introduced by Leslie Baxter and Barbara Matgomery (1988),
explores the ways in which people in relationships use verbal
communication to manage conflict and contradiction as opposed to
psychology. This concept focuses on maintaining a relationship even
through contradictions that arise and how relationships are managed
through coordinated talk. RDT assumes that relationships are
composed of opposing tendencies, are constantly changing, and
tensions arises from intimate relationships.
Concepts
 Contradictions – The concept is that the contrary has the characteristics
of its opposite. People can seek to be in a relationship but still need their
space.
 Totality – The totality comes when the opposites unite. Thus, the
relationship is balanced with contradictions and only then it reaches
totality
 Process – Comprehended through various social processes. These
processes simultaneously continue within a relationship in a recurring
manner.
 Praxis – The relationship progresses with experience and both people
interact and communicate effectively to meet their needs. Praxis is a
concept of practicability in making decisions being in a relationship
despite of opposing wants and needs
Strategy of Conflict[edit]
Strategy of Conflict, by Thomas Schelling, is the study of negotiation
during conflict and strategic behavior that results in the development
of "conflict behavior." This idea is based largely on Game
Theory includes a "A Reorientation of Game Theory" in which
Schelling discusses ways in which one can redirect the focus of a
conflict in order to gain advantage over an opponent.

 Conflict is a contest. Rational behavior, in this contest, is a matter of

judgment and perception.

 Strategy makes predictions using “rational behavior - behavior motivated

by a serious calculation of advantages, a calculation that in turn is
based on an explicit and internally consistent value system."
 Cooperation is always temporary, interests will change.

Conflict resolution in Peace and Conflict

Studies[edit]
Definition[edit]
Within Peace and conflict studies a definition of conflict resolution is
presented in Peter Wallensteen's book Understanding Conflict
Resolution:
"[Conflict resolution is] a social situation where the armed conflicting
parties in a (voluntarily) agreement resolve to live peacefully with –
and/or dissolve – their basic incompatibilities and henceforth cease to
use arms against one another"[16]
'The conflicting parties' concerned in this definition are formally or
informally organized groups engaged in intrastate or interstate
conflict.[17][18] 'Basic incompatibility' refers to a severe disagreement
between at least two sides where their demands cannot be met by the
same resources at the same time.[19]
Conflict Resolution Mechanisms[edit]
One theory discussed within the field of Peace and conflict studies is
conflict resolution mechanisms: independent procedures in which the
conflicting parties can have confidence. They can be formal or
informal arrangements with the intention of resolving the conflict.
[20]
 In Understanding Conflict Resolution Wallensteen draws from the
works of Coser, Galtung and Schelling, and presents seven distinct
theoretical mechanisms for conflict resolutions:[21]

1. A shift in priorities for one of the conflicting parties. While it is rare

that a party completely changes its basic positions, it can display a
shift in to what it gives highest priority. In such an instance new
possibilities for conflict resolutions may arise.
2. The contested resource is divided. In essence, this means both
conflicting parties display some extent of shift in priorities which then
opens up for some form of “meeting the other side halfway”
agreement.
3. Horse-trading between the conflicting parties. This means that one
side gets all of its demands met on one issue, while the other side
gets all of its demands met on another issue.
4. The parties decide to share control, and rule together over the
contested resource. It could be permanent, or a temporary
arrangement for a transition period that, when over, has led to a
transcendence of the conflict.
5. The parties agree to leave control to someone else. In this
mechanism the primary parties agree, or accept, that a third party
takes control over the contested resource.
6. The parties resort to conflict resolution mechanisms,
notably arbitration or other legal procedures. This means finding a
procedure for resolving the conflict through some of the previously
mentioned five ways, but with the added quality that it is done
through a process outside of the parties’ immediate control.
7. Some issues can be left for later. The argument for this is that
political conditions and popular attitudes can change, and some
issues can gain from being delayed, as their significance may pale
with time.

Intrastate and interstate conflict resolution in

practice[edit]
Moshe Dayan and Abdullah el Tell reach a ceasefire agreement during the 1948 Arab–
Israeli War in Jerusalem on 30 November 1948

According to conflict database Uppsala Conflict Data

Program (UCDP)'s definition war may occur between parties who
contest an incompatibility. The nature of an incompatibility can
be territorial or governmental, but a warring party must be a
"government of a state or any opposition organization or alliance of
organizations that uses armed force to promote its position in the
incompatibility in an intrastate or an interstate armed conflict". [22] Wars
can conclude with a peace agreement, which is a "formal
agreement... which addresses the disputed incompatibility, either by
settling all or part of it, or by clearly outlining a process for how [...] to
regulate the incompatibility."[23] A ceasefire is another form of
agreement made by warring parties; unlike a peace agreement, it only
"regulates the conflict behaviour of warring parties", and does not
resolve the issue that brought the parties to war in the first place. [24]
Peacekeeping measures may be deployed to avoid violence in
solving such incompatibilities.[25] Beginning in the last century, political
theorists have been developing the theory of a global peace
system that relies upon broad social and political measures to avoid
war in the interest of achieving world peace.[26] The Blue Peace
approach developed by Strategic Foresight Group facilitates
cooperation between countries over shared water resources, thus
reducing the risk of war and enabling sustainable development. [27]
Conflict resolution is an expanding field of professional practice, both
in the U.S. and around the world. The escalating costs of conflict have
increased use of third parties who may serve as a conflict specialists
to resolve conflicts. In fact, relief and development organizations have
added peace-building specialists to their teams. [28] Many major
international non-governmental organizations have seen a growing
need to hire practitioners trained in conflict analysis and resolution.
Furthermore, this expansion has resulted in the need for conflict
resolution practitioners to work in a variety of settings such as in
businesses, court systems, government agencies, nonprofit
organizations, and educational institutions throughout the world.

Conflict resolution in the workplace[edit]

According to the Cambridge dictionary, a very basic definition of
CONFLICT is: an active disagreement between people with opposing
opinions or principles. Conflicts such as disagreements may occur at
any moment, being a normal part of human interactions. The type of
conflict and its severity may vary both in content and degree of
seriousness; however, it is impossible to completely avoid it. Actually,
conflict in itself is not necessarily a negative thing. When handled
constructively it can help people to stand up for themselves and
others, to evolve and learn how to work together to achieve a
mutually satisfactory solution. But if conflict is handled poorly it can
cause anger, hurt, divisiveness and more serious problems.
If it is impossible to completely avoid conflict as it was said, the
possibilities to experience it are usually higher particularly in complex
social contexts in which important diversities are at stake. Specially
because of this reason, speaking about conflict resolution becomes
fundamental in ethnically diverse and multicultural work
environments, in which not only “regular” work disagreements may
occur but in which also different languages, worldviews, lifestyles and
ultimately value differences may diverge.
CONFLICT RESOLUTION is the process by which two or more
parties engaged in a disagreement, dispute or debate reach an
agreement resolving it. It involves a series of stages, involved actors,
models and approaches that may depend on the kind of confrontation
at stake and the surrounded social and cultural context. However,
there are some general actions and personal skills that may be very
useful when facing a conflict to solve (independently of its nature),
e.g. an open minded orientation able to analyze the different point of
views and perspectives involved, as well as an ability to empathize,
carefully listen and clearly communicate with all the parts involved.
Sources of conflict may be so many, depending on the particular
situation and the specific context, but some of the most common
include:
Personal differences such as values, ethics, personalities, age,
education, gender, socioeconomic status, cultural background,
temperament, health, religion, political beliefs, etc. Thus, almost any
social category that serves to differentiate people may become an
object of conflict when it does negatively diverge with people who do
not share it. Clashes of ideas, choices or actions. Conflict occurs
when people does not share common goals, or common ways to
reach a particular objective (e.g. different work styles). Conflict occurs
also when there is direct or indirect competition between people or
when someone may feel excluded from a particular activity or by
some people within the company. Lack of communication or poor
communication are also significant reasons to start a conflict, to
misunderstand a particular situation and to create potentially
explosive interactions.
Fundamental strategies for conflict resolution[edit]
Although different conflicts may require different ways to handle them,
this is a list of fundamental strategies that may be implemented when
handling a conflictive situation:
 1. Reaching Agreement on rules and procedures: Establishing
ground rules may include the following actions: a. Determining a site
for the meeting; b. Setting a formal agenda; c. Determining who
attends; d. Setting time limits; e. Setting procedural rules; f.
Following specific "do(s) and don't(s)".
2. Reducing tension and synchronizing the de-escalation of
hostility: In highly emotional situations when people feel angry,
upset, frustrated, it is important to implement the following actions:
a. Separating the involved parties; b. Managing tensions – jokes as
an instrument to give the opportunity for catharsis; c. Acknowledging
others’ feelings – actively listening to others; d. De-escalation by
public statements by parties – about the concession, the
commitments of the parties.
3. Improving the accuracy of communication, particularly
improving each party's understanding of the other's
perception: a. Accurate understanding of the other's position; b.
Role reversal, trying to adopt the other's position (empathetic
attitudes); c. Imaging – describing how they see themselves, how
the other parties appears to them, how they think the other parties
will describe them and how the others see themselves.
4. Controlling the number and size of issues in the discussion: a.
Fractionate the negotiation – a method that divides a large conflict
into smaller parts: 1. Reduce the number of parties on each side; 2.
Control the number of substantive issues; 3. Search for different
ways to divide big issues.
5. Establishing common ground where parties can find a basis for
agreement: a. Establishing common goals or superordinate goals;
b. Establishing common enemies; c. Identifying common
expectations; d. Managing time constraints and deadlines; e.
Reframing the parties’ view of each other; f. Build trust through the
negotiation process.
6. Enhancing the desirability of the options and alternatives that
each party presents to the other: a. Giving the other party an
acceptable proposal; b. Asking for a different decision; c. Sweeten
the other rather than intensifying the threat; d. Elaborating objective
or legitimate criteria to evaluate all possible solutions.
Conflict resolution approaches[edit]
A conflict is a common phenomenon in the workplace; as mentioned
before, it can occur because of the most different grounds of diversity
and under very different circumstances. However, it is usually a
matter of interests, needs, priorities, goals or values interfering with
each other; and, often, a result of different perceptions more than
actual differences. Conflicts may involve team members,
departments, projects, organization and client, boss and subordinate,
organization needs vs. personal needs, and they are usually
immersed in complex relations of power that need to be understood
and interpreted in order to define the more tailored way to manage
the conflict. There are, nevertheless, some main approaches that may
be applied when trying to solve a conflict that may lead to very
different outcomes to be valued according to the particular situation
and the available negotiation resources:
Forcing: When one of the conflict's parts firmly pursues his or her
own concerns despite the resistance of the other(s). This may involve
pushing one viewpoint at the expense of another or maintaining firm
resistance to the counterpart's actions; it is also commonly known as
“competing”. Forcing may be appropriate when all other, less forceful
methods, do not work or are ineffective; when someone needs to
stand up for his/her own rights (or the represented
group/organization's rights), resist aggression and pressure. It may be
also considered a suitable option when a quick resolution is required
and using force is justified (e.g. in a life-threatening situation, to stop
an aggression), and as a very last resort to resolve a long-lasting
conflict.
However, forcing may also negatively affect the relationship with the
opponent in the long run; may intensified the conflict if the opponent
decides to react in the same way (even if it was not the original
intention); it does not allow to take advantage in a productive way of
the other side's position and, last but not least, taking this approach
may require a lot of energy and be exhausting to some individuals.
Win-Win / Collaborating: Collaboration involves an attempt to work
with the other part involved in the conflict to find a win-win solution to
the problem in hand, or at least to find a solution that most satisfies
the concerns of both parties. The win-win approach sees conflict
resolution as an opportunity to come to a mutually beneficial result;
and it includes identifying the underlying concerns of the opponents
and finding an alternative which meets each party's concerns. From
that point of view, it is the most desirable outcome when trying to
solve a problem for all partners.
Collaborating may be the best solution when consensus and
commitment of other parties is important; when the conflict occurs in a
collaborative, trustworthy environment and when it is required to
address the interests of multiple stakeholders. But more specially, it is
the most desirable outcome when a long-term relationship is
important so that people can continue to collaborate in a productive
way; collaborating is in few words, sharing responsibilities and mutual
commitment. For parties involved, the outcome of the conflict
resolution is less stressful; however, the process of finding and
establishing a win-win solution may be longer and should be very
involving.
It may require more effort and more time than some other methods;
for the same reason, collaborating may not be practical when timing is
crucial and a quick solution or fast response is required.
Compromising: Different from the Win-Win solution, in this outcome
the conflict parties find a mutually acceptable solution which partially
satisfies both parties. Compromising may be an optimal solution when
the goals are moderately important and not worth the use of more
assertive or more involving approaches. It may be useful when
reaching temporary settlement on complex issues and as a first step
when the involved parties do not know each other well or have not yet
developed a high level of mutual trust. Compromising may be a faster
way to solve things when time is a factor. The level of tensions can be
lower as well, but the result of the conflict may be also less
satisfactory.
If this method is not well managed, and the factor time becomes the
most important one, the situation may result in both parties being not
satisfied with the outcome (i.e. a lose-lose situation). Moreover, it
does not contribute to building trust in the long run and it may require
a closer monitoring of the kind of partially satisfactory compromises
acquired.
Withdrawing: This technique consists on not addressing the conflict,
postpone it or simply withdrawing; for that reason, it is also known as
Avoiding. This outcome is suitable when the issue is trivial and not
worth the effort or when more important issues are pressing, and one
or both the parties do not have time to deal with it. Withdrawing may
be also a strategic response when it is not the right time or place to
confront the issue, when more time is needed to think and collect
information before acting or when not responding may bring still some
winnings for at least some of the involves parties. Moreover,
withdrawing may be also employed when someone know that the
other party is totally engaged with hostility and does not want (can
not) to invest further unreasonable efforts.
Withdrawing may give the possibility to see things from a different
perspective while gaining time and collecting further information, and
specially is a low stress approach particularly when the conflict is a
short time one. However, not acting may be interpreted as an
agreement and therefore it may lead to weakening or losing a
previously gained position with one or more parties involved.
Furthermore, when using withdrawing as a strategy more time, skills
and experiences together with other actions may need to be
implemented.
Smoothing: Smoothing is accommodating the concerns of others
first of all, rather than one's own concerns. This kind of strategy may
be applied when the issue of the conflict is much more important for
the counterparts whereas for the other is not particularly relevant. It
may be also applied when someone accepts that he/she is wrong and
furthermore there are no other possible options than continuing an
unworthy competing-pushing situation. Just as withdrawing,
smoothing may be an option to find at least a temporal solution or
obtain more time and information, however, it is not an option when
priority interests are at stake.
There is a high risk of being abused when choosing the smoothing
option. Therefore, it is important to keep the right balance and to not
give up one own interests and necessities. Otherwise, confidence in
one's ability, mainly with an aggressive opponent, may be seriously
damaged, together with credibility by the other parties involved.
Needed to say, in these cases a transition to a Win-Win solution in
the future becomes particularly more difficult when someone.

Conflict resolution between organizations[edit]

Relationships between organizations, such as strategic alliances,
buyer-supplier partnerships, organizational networks, or joint
ventures are prone to conflict.[29] Conflict resolution in inter-
organizational relationships has attracted the attention of business
and management scholars. They have related the forms of conflict
(e.g., integrity-based vs. competence-based conflict) to the mode of
conflict resolution[30] and the negotiation and repair approaches used
by organizations.[31] They have also observed the role of important
moderating factors such as the type of contractual arrangement, [32] the
level of trust between organizations,[33] or the type of power
asymmetry.[34]

Conflict resolution in the classroom[edit]

Steps to conflict resolution in the classroom[edit]
Step 1: Clarifying and focusing: problem ownership
Negative feelings such as annoyance, anger and discomfort can
interfere with understanding exactly what is wrong in situations of
confrontation and how to set things right again. Gaining a bit of
distance from negative feelings is exactly what such moments call for,
especially on the part of the person with (presumably) the greatest
maturity. Problem ownership is defined as deciding who should take
ownership of the behavior or conflict in the issue (Gordon, 2003). The
main person who is bothered by the root problem is also the “owner”
of the problem, and thus the owner of a problem needs to be the one
who takes primary responsibility for solving the issue. Identifying
ownership makes a difference in how behavior is dealt with, as well
as how the problem is effectively solved. It is important to ask
clarifying questions to really understand the root causes of the
conflict.
Step 2: Active listening
Several strategies help with distinguishing who has a problem with a
behavior and who takes ownership. One of those strategies is active
listening. Active listening is attending carefully to all aspects of what a
student says and attempting to understand or empathize as much as
one can (Seifert & Sutton). Active listening consists of continually
asking questions in order to test one's understanding. It also requires
giving encouragement to the student by letting them tell their story,
and paraphrasing what the student says so that an unbiased
conclusion can be made. It is key not to move too quickly at solving
the problem by just giving advice, instructions, or scolding.
Responding too soon with solutions can shut down the student's
communication and leave an inaccurate impressions of the source or
nature of the problem (Seifert & Sutton).
Step 3: Assertive discipline and I-messages
After the teacher has taken in the student's point of view, comments
should be formed around how the student's behavior affects the
teacher's role. The teacher's comments should be assertive,
emphasize I-messages, and encourage the student to think about the
effects of his or her behavior. They should not be passive, apologetic,
hostile or aggressive, but matter-of-fact, such as, "Charlie, you are
talking while I am talking." The comments should emphasize I-
messages that focus on how the behavior is affecting the teacher's
teaching and the other students' learning (Seifert & Sutton). An
example of this would be, "You are making it hard for me to focus on
teaching this math lesson." Lastly, the teacher should ask the student
more open-ended questions that make him or her think about the
consequences of his or her behavior, such as, "How do the other kids
feel when you yell in the middle of class?" (Seifert & Sutton).

 The comments should encourage the student to think about the effects
of his or her actions on others—-a strategy that in effect encourages the
student to consider the ethical implications of the actions (Gibbs, 2003).
Instead of simply saying, "When you cut in line ahead of the other kids,
that was not fair to them", the teacher can try asking, "How do you think
the other kids feel when you cut in line ahead of them?"
Step 4: Negotiation
Seifert and Sutton state that the first three steps describe desirable
ways of handling situations that are specific and last for only a short
time. These steps by themselves could potentially not be enough
when conflicts persist over extended periods of time. Often it is better
to negotiate a solution in these situations. Negotiating is defined as
methodically deliberating various options and deciding on one if
possible (Seifert & Sutton). Even though negotiation demands time
and energy, it often demands less time or effort ultimately than
continuing to cope with the problem. The results of negotiation can be
valuable to everyone involved in the situation. Various experts on
conflict resolution have suggested different ways to negotiate with
students about problems that are continual (Seifert & Sutton). The
theories differ in specifics, but typically are generally similar to the
steps we previously discussed:

 Determine what the problem is—involves active listening

 Discuss and share possible solutions, consider their efficacy
 Attempt to reach a consensus: Total agreement on the subject will not
always be possible, but should be set as an end goal
 Assess the success of the decision: Renegotiation might be necessary.
[35]

Other forms of conflict resolution[edit]

This section needs additional citations
for verification. Please help improve this
article by adding citations to reliable sources.
Unsourced material may be challenged and
removed. (July 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this
template message)

Conflict management[edit]
Conflict management refers to the long-term management of
intractable conflicts. It is the label for the variety of ways by which
people handle grievances—standing up for what they consider to be
right and against what they consider to be wrong. Those ways include
such diverse phenomena as gossip, ridicule, lynching, terrorism,
warfare, feuding, genocide, law, mediation, and avoidance. [citation
needed]
 Which forms of conflict management will be used in any given
situation can be somewhat predicted and explained by the social
structure—or social geometry—of the case.
Conflict management is often considered to be distinct from conflict
resolution. In order for actual conflict to occur, there should be an
expression of exclusive patterns which explain why and how the
conflict was expressed the way it was. Conflict is often connected to a
previous issue. Resolution refers to resolving a dispute to the
approval of one or both parties, whereas management is concerned
with an ongoing process that may never have a resolution. Neither is
considered the same as conflict transformation, which seeks to
reframe the positions of the conflict parties.
Counseling[edit]
When personal conflict leads to frustration and loss of
efficiency, counseling may prove helpful. Although
few organizations can afford to have professional counselors on staff,
given some training, managers may be able to perform this function.
Nondirective counseling, or "listening with understanding", is little
more than being a good listener—something every manager should
be.[36]
Sometimes simply being able to express one's feelings to a
concerned and understanding listener is enough to relieve frustration
and make it possible for an individual to advance to a problem-solving
frame of mind. The nondirective approach is one effective way for
managers to deal with frustrated subordinates and coworkers. [37]
There are other, more direct and more diagnostic, methods that could
be used in appropriate circumstances. However, the great strength of
the nondirective approach[nb 2] lies in its simplicity, its effectiveness, and
that it deliberately avoids the manager-counselor's diagnosing and
interpreting emotional problems, which would call for special
psychological training. Listening to staff with sympathy and
understanding is unlikely to escalate the problem, and is a widely
used approach for helping people cope with problems that interfere
with their effectiveness in the workplace.[37]

Culture-based[edit]

The Reconciliation of Jacob and Esau (illustration from a Bible card published 1907 by

the Providence Lithograph Company)

Conflict resolution as both a professional practice and academic field

is highly sensitive to cultural practices. In Western cultural contexts,
such as Canada and the United States, successful conflict resolution
usually involves fostering communication among disputants, problem
solving, and drafting agreements that meet underlying needs. In these
situations, conflict resolvers often talk about finding a mutually
satisfying ("win-win") solution for everyone involved.[38]
In many non-Western cultural contexts, such
as Afghanistan, Vietnam, and China, it is also important to find "win-
win" solutions; however, the routes taken to find them may be very
different. In these contexts, direct communication between disputants
that explicitly addresses the issues at stake in the conflict can be
perceived as very rude, making the conflict worse and delaying
resolution. It can make sense to involve religious, tribal, or community
leaders; communicate difficult truths through a third party; or make
suggestions through stories.[39] Intercultural conflicts are often the most
difficult to resolve because the expectations of the disputants can be
very different, and there is much occasion for misunderstanding. [40]
In a piece on “the ocean model of civilization”, Prof Nayef Al-Rodhan
argues that greater transcultural understanding is critical for global
security because it diminishes ‘hierarchies’ and alienation, and avoids
dehumanization of the ‘other’.

In animals[edit]
Conflict resolution has also been studied in non-humans, including
dogs, cats, monkeys, snakes, elephants, and primates.
[41]
 Aggression is more common among relatives and within a group
than between groups. Instead of creating distance between the
individuals, primates tend to be more intimate in the period after an
aggressive incident. These intimacies consist of grooming and
various forms of body contact. Stress responses, including increased
heart rates, usually decrease after these reconciliatory signals.
Different types of primates, as well as many other species who live in
groups, display different types of conciliatory behavior. Resolving
conflicts that threaten the interaction between individuals in a group is
necessary for survival, giving it a strong evolutionary value.[citation
needed]
 These findings contradict previous existing theories about the
general function of aggression, i.e. creating space between
individuals (first proposed by Konrad Lorenz), which seems to be
more the case in conflicts between groups than it is within groups.
In addition to research in primates, biologists are beginning to
explore reconciliation in other animals. Until recently, the literature
dealing with reconciliation in non-primates has consisted of anecdotal
observations and very little quantitative data. Although peaceful post-
conflict behavior had been documented going back to the 1960s, it
was not until 1993 that Rowell made the first explicit mention of
reconciliation in feral sheep. Reconciliation has since been
documented in spotted hyenas,[42][43] lions, bottlenose dolphins,[44] dwarf
mongoose, domestic goats,[45] domestic dogs,[46] and, recently, in red-
necked wallabies.[47]

Education[edit]
Universities worldwide offer programs of study pertaining to conflict
research, analysis, and practice. Conrad Grebel University College at
the University of Waterloo has the oldest-running peace and conflict
studies (PACS) program in Canada.[48] PACS can be taken as an
Honors, 4-year general, or 3-year general major, joint major, minor,
and diploma. Grebel also offers an interdisciplinary Master of Peace
and Conflict Studies professional program. The Cornell University ILR
School houses the Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution, which
offers undergraduate, graduate, and professional training on conflict
resolution.[49] It also offers dispute resolution concentrations for
its MILR, JD/MILR, MPS, and MS/PhD graduate degree programs.
[50]
 At the graduate level, Eastern Mennonite University's Center for
Justice and Peacebuilding offers a Master of Arts in Conflict
Transformation, a dual Master of Divinity/MA in Conflict
Transformation degree, and several graduate certificates. [51] EMU also
offers an accelerated 5-year BA in Peacebuilding and
Development/MA in Conflict Transformation. Additional graduate
programs are offered at Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins
University, Creighton University, the University of North Carolina at
Greensboro, and Trinity College Dublin.[52] George Mason
University’s Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and
Conflict Resolution offers BA, BS, MS, and PhD degrees in Conflict
Analysis and Resolution, as well as an undergraduate minor,
graduate certificates, and joint degree programs. [53] Nova
Southeastern University also offers a PhD in Conflict Analysis &
Resolution, in both online and on-campus formats. [54]
Conflict resolution is a growing area of interest in UK pedagogy, with
teachers and students both encouraged to learn about mechanisms
that lead to aggressive action and those that lead to peaceful
resolution. The University of Law, one of the oldest common law
training institutions in the world, offers a legal-focused master's
degree in Conflict Resolution as an LL.M. (Conflict resolution). [55]
Tel Aviv University offers two graduate degree programs in the field of
conflict resolution, including the English-language International
Program in Conflict Resolution and Mediation, allowing students to
learn in a geographic region which is the subject of much research on
international conflict resolution.
The Nelson Mandela Center for Peace & Conflict Resolution at Jamia
Millia Islamia University, New Delhi, is one of the first centers for
peace and conflict resolution to be established at an Indian university.
It offers a two-year full-time MA course in Conflict Analysis and
Peace-Building, as well as a PhD in Conflict and Peace Studies. [56]
In Sweden Linnaeus University, Lund University and Uppsala
University offer programs on bachelor, master and/or doctorial level in
Peace and Conflict Studies.[57][58][59] Uppsala University also hosts its
own Department of Peace and Conflict Research, among other things
occupied with running the conflict database UCDP. [59][60