The word conflict has been derived from

Latin Conflictus around early 15c.

Com- "together" + Fligere "to strike”….
 According to Oxford Dictionary A Conflict is “a
serious disagreement or argument, typically a
protracted one”.
 According to Merriam Webster “a struggle for
power, property, etc.” is known to be a conflict.
So from above definitions we can say that conflict
is a Disagreement or a struggle between 2 parties,
ideas or entities.
 A perceived incompatibility of actions, goals, or
ideas.(Myers, 2008) The elements of conflict are
much the same at all levels, from nations at war,
to cultural disputes within a society, to
individuals in a marital dispute.
 According to Erik Erikson's theory of
psychosocial development, a conflict is a turning
point during which an individual struggles to
attain some psychological quality. Sometimes
referred to as a psychosocial crisis, this can be a
time of both vulnerability and strength, as the
individual works toward success or failure
 Conflict, in psychology, is the arousal of two or
more strong motives that cannot be solved
together. A youngster, for example, may want to
go to a dance to feel that he belongs to a group
and does what his friends do.
 Coser(1956): Conflict is a struggle between
opponents over values and claims to scarce
status, power and resources.

 Deutsch(1973): Conflict takes place whenever

incompatible activities occur.

 Pruitt & Rubin(1986): Conflict is a perceived

divergence of interests, or a belief that the
party`s current aspirations cannot be achieved
simultaneously.
 According to Colman ‘A conflict is the anticipated
frustration entailed in the choice of either alternative’.
Conflicts occur in the individual when more than one,
equally powerful desires or motives present at the same
time and pressurize for immediate satisfaction.
 According to Tajfel(1979) Conflict refers to anytime you
have opposing or incompatible actions, objectives, or
ideas. Conflicts can be between two people, countries,
groups, or even within one person (an internal conflict).
Conflicts are problematic and must be addressed in order
to have peace, productivity, or harmony.
 Park and Burgess (1921), likewise, treat conflict as a
distinct form of competition. ‘Both are forms of interaction
but competition is a struggle between individuals or
groups of individuals who are not necessarily in contact
and communication while conflict is a contest in which
contact is an indispensable condition.’
 According to Max Weber (1968), ‘a social
relationship will be referred to as conflict in so far
as action within it is oriented intentional to
carrying out the actor’s own will against the
resistance of the other party or parties’. Thus, the
social interaction of conflict is defined by the
desire of each participant to impose his will upon
the other’s resistance.
 Gillin and Gillin (1948) wrote: ‘Conflict is the social
process in which individuals or groups seek their
ends by directly challenging the antagonist by
violence or threat of violence.’
 To sum up, it may be said that conflict refers to the
struggle in which competing parties, attempting to
reach a goal, strive to eliminate an opponent by
making the other party ineffectual or by
annihilation.
 1. It is a universal process found in every society.
 2. It is the result of deliberate and conscious efforts of
individuals or the groups.
 3. The nature of the conflict is personal and direct. In
conflict the incumbents or participants know each
other personally.
 4. It is basically an individual process. Its aim is not
directly connected with the achievement of the goal or
an objective but is rather directed to dominate others
or to eliminate the opponent.
 5. Conflict is of brief duration, temporary and
intermittent in character. But, once begun, the conflict
process is hard to stop. It tends to grow more and
more bitter as it proceeds. Being temporary, it gives
way to some form of accommodation.
 6. It is a process loaded with impulsiveness of human
emotions and violent passions. It gains force and then bursts
open. Unlike fighting of animals, generally in human groups,
the spontaneous fighting is inhibited. It is often avoided
through the process of accommodation and assimilation.
 7. It may be latent or overt. In the latent form, it may exist in
the form of tension, dissatisfaction, contravention and rivalry.
It becomes overt when an issue is declared and a hostile
action is taken.
 8. It is cumulative; each act of aggression usually promotes a
more aggressive rebuttal. Thus, termination of conflict is not
easy.
 9. Groups previously in conflict may co-operate to achieve a
goal considered important enough for them to unite despite
their differences.
 10. It may emerge as a result of opposing interests. It is
layered in a history of binary perceptions: exile/homeland,
outsider/insider, us/them, patriotic/unpatriotic.
 11. It has both disintegrative and integrative effects. It
disrupts unity in a society and is a disturbing way of setting
issues. A certain account of internal conflict, however, may
serve indirectly to stimulate group interaction. External
conflict can have positive effects by unifying the group.
 According to… Wilmot and Hocker, 1998; Lulofs, 1994; McCorkle

and Mills, 1992; McKinney, Kimsey, and Fuller, 1995.

1. Conflict requires at least two entities.(Be it ideas, people,

parties etc.)
2. Conflict inherently involves some sense of struggle or
incompatibility or perceived difference among values,
goals, or desires.
3. Action, whether overt or covert, is key to conflict. Until
action or expression occurs, conflict is latent, lurking below
the surface.
4. Power or attempts to influence inevitably occur within
conflicts. If the parties really don't care about the outcome,
the discussion probably doesn't rise to the level where we
call it a conflict. When people argue without caring about
what happens next or without a sense of involvement and
struggle, it probably is just a disagreement.
5. Conflicts give rise to a lot of tension in the individual(s) , he
becomes completely disturbed. Tension continues until a
decision is taken and conflict is resolved.
 Conflict also can be understood by examining what
it is not:
 Conflict is not a breakdown in communication, but
a process that is on-going. Conflict entails
communication about disagreements.
 Conflict is not inherently good or bad. While people
may tend to remember only the conflicts that were
painful, conflict itself is a normal part of being
human. It is normal in relationships for differences
to occur occasionally, just as it is normal in
businesses for changes in goals and directions to
occur. Conflict is normal.
 Conflict is not automatically resolved by
communication. Managing conflicts productively is
a skill.
 Approach-approach conflict: occurs when you
must choose between two desirable outcomes.
 Avoidance-avoidance conflict: occurs when you
must choose between two unattractive
outcomes.
 Approach-avoidance: exists when ONE event or
goal has both attractive and unattractive
features.
 Multiple approach-avoidance conflicts: here you
must choose between two or more things, each
of which has both desirable and undesirable
features.
 In this type of conflict individual will have two desires with
positive valence which are equally powerful. For example, a
person has two attractive job offers and he has to choose
any one of them- tension arises.
 Such conflicts are not so harmful, because after selecting
one, the other one automatically subsides or loses its
importance to him. But in some situation choice will be very
difficult. For example, a girl has to choose either loving
parents or a boy friend for inter-caste marriage. Such cases
are like ‘you cannot have the cake and eat it too’.
 The individual will be psychologically torn and may lose
equilibrium. This type of conflict is diagrammatically
represented in Figure.
 This conflict involves two goals with negative valence. At times
the individual is forced to choose one among two negative goals.
In such conflicts, both are unwanted goals, but he cannot keep
quiet without opting also. For example, a woman must work at a
job which she dislikes very much or else she has to remain
unemployed.
 Here the individual is caught between two repelling threats, fears
or situations. When she cannot choose either of them she may
try to escape from the field itself. But the consequences of the
escape may also be harmful. For example, a person who cannot
convince the mother or the wife may resort to Alcohol
consumption which is otherwise dangerous or some people may
even commit suicide. Such type of conflict is diagrammatically
represented in Figure
 In the event of such conflicts when there is no way to escape-
some people may find a way to reduce their tension by
developing ‘amnesia’ or defence mechanisms like regression or
fantasy.
 This is also a most complex conflict and very difficult
to resolve. Because in this type of conflict a person is
both attracted and repelled by the same goal object.
Here the goal object will have both positive and
negative valences.
 The positive valence attracts the person, but as he
approaches, the negative valence repels him back.
Attraction of the goal and inability to approach it
leads to frustration and tension.
 For example, a person is approaching to accept a job
offer, because the salary is attractive- but at the
same time he is repelled back as the job is very risky.
A man wants to marry to lead a family life, but does
not want the responsibilities of family life. This type
of conflict is diagrammatically represented in Figure.
 Some of the situations in life we come across will involve both
positive and negative valences of multiple nature. Suppose a
woman is engaged to be married. The marriage to her has
positive valences like-providing security to life and marrying a
person whom she loves very much.
 Suppose, on the other hand, if the marriage is repellent to her
because she has to quit her attractive job and salary,
recognition which makes her dependent, the situation builds up
tension in her.
 The resolution of this conflict depends upon the sum total of
both valences. If the sum total of attractive valence takes upper
hand, she will quit the job and go for marriage; otherwise she
may reject marriage and continue the job if the sum total of
negative valence is powerful. This type of conflict is shown
diagrammatically in Figure
Intrapersonal conflict- occurs within a person when (s)he has to compare and
decide between 2 or more options.
 For example, a secretary may have to lie on instructions that her boss is not
in the office to avoid an unwanted visitor or an unwanted telephone call.
 This may cause a conflict within the mind of the secretary who may have
developed an ethic of telling the truth. Similarly, many Indians who are
vegetarians and come to America and find it very hard to remain vegetarians
may question the necessity of the vegetarian philosophy thus causing a
conflict in their minds.

 Role conflict- involves very real differences in role definitions, expectations

or responsibilities between individuals who are interdependent in a social
system.

 In addition to these value conflicts, a person may be faced with a role

conflict.
 For example, a telephone operator may be advised and required to be polite
to the customers by her supervisor, who may also complain that she is
spending too much time with her customers. This would cause a role conflict
in her mind.
 Similarly a police officer may be invited to his brother’s wedding where he
may find that some guests are using drugs which are against the law. It may
cause conflict in his mind as to which role he should play – as of a brother or
as of a police officer. Conflict within an individual can also arise when a
person has to choose between two equally desirable alternatives or between
Interpersonal conflict- occurs when two people have incompatible needs,
goals, or approaches in their relationship.
Interpersonal conflict involves conflict between two or more individuals
and is probably the most common and most recognized conflict.
Similarly, if there are two equally deserving professors and they are both
up for promotion, but only one of them can be promoted because of
budget and positional constraints, then this could result in interpersonal
conflict between the two professors.

Intergroup conflict- occurs between collections of people such as ethnic

or racial groups, departments or levels of decision making in the same
organization, and union and management.
An organization is an interlocking network of groups, departments,
sections or work teams. The intergroup conflicts are not so much
personal in nature as they are due to factors inherent in the
organizational structure. For example, there is active and continuous
conflict between the union and the management..

Inter-organizational conflict:
Conflict also occurs between organizations which are dependent upon
each other in some way. This conflict may be between buyer
organizations and supplier organizations about quantity, quality and
delivery times of raw materials and other policy issues.
Such conflict could also be between unions and organizations employing
their members, between government agencies that regulate certain
organizations and the organizations that are affected by them.
Conflict between the individual and the group:
 All formal groups and informal groups have
established certain norms of behaviour and
operational standards which all members are
expected to adhere to. An individual member may
want to remain within the group for social needs but
may disagree with the group goals and the methods
to achieve such goals.
 For example, in some restaurants, all tips are shared
equally by all waiters and waitresses. Some particular
waitress who may be overly polite and efficient may
feel that she deserves more, thus causing conflict
between her and the group. Similarly, if a group is
going on strike for some reasons, some members of
the group may not agree with these reasons or
simply may not be economically able to afford to go
on strike, thus causing conflict with the group.
 Social Competiti
Dilemmas on

Perceived Misperce
Injustice ption
 Social dilemmas
◦ A social dilemma is a situation in which an individual
profits from selfishness unless everyone chooses the
selfish alternative, in which case the whole group loses.
◦ Individuals must choose between maximizing their
personal outcomes and maximizing their group’s
outcomes.
 Social dilemmas involve a conflict between
immediate self-interest and longer-term
collective interests. These are challenging
situations because acting in one’s immediate
self-interest is tempting to everyone involved,
even though everybody benefits from acting in
the longer-term collective interest.
 A social dilemma is a collective action situation in
which there is a conflict between individual and
collective interest. (Kollock, P., "Social Dilemmas:
The Anatomy of Cooperation“)
 It is a situation in which individuals could do
better if they either changed their strategies or
changed the rules of the game.
 Another informal definition is that a social
dilemma "is defined by two properties: (a) each
individual receives a higher payoff for a socially
defecting choice ... than for a socially cooperative
choice, no matter what the other individuals do,
but (b) all individuals are all better off if all
cooperate than if all defect . (Dawes, Robyn,
"Social Dilemmas”)
 Many real-life situations similarly pit our
individual interests against our communal well-
being. Individual whalers reasoned that the few
whales they took would not threaten the species
and that if they didn’t take them others would
anyway.
 The result: Some species of whales became
endangered.
 A situation in which the conflicting parties, by
each rationally pursuing its self interests become
caught in mutually destructive behavior.
 Examples Prisoner’s dilemma and The Tragedy of
the Commons…
 The prisoner's dilemma is a paradox
in decision analysis in which two individuals
acting in their own best interest pursue a
course of action that does not result in the
ideal outcome.(Rapoport, 1968)
 Dawes in 1991 after a analysis and Meta analysis of
more than 2000 studies has concluded
 The typical prisoner's dilemma is set up in such a
way that both parties choose to protect themselves
at the expense of the other participant. As a result
of following a purely logical thought process to
help oneself, both participants find themselves in a
worse state than if they had cooperated with each
other in the decision-making process.
 In a laboratory version to the above dilemma
similar results were found out by Shergill et al. in
2003 and Anderson et al in 2008.
 The tragedy of the commons is a term coined by
scientist Garrett Hardin in 1968 describing what
can happen in groups when individuals act in
their own best self interests and ignore what’s
best for the whole group.
 A group of herdsmen shared a communal
pasture, so the story goes, but some realized
that if they increased their own herd, it would
greatly benefit them. However, increasing your
herd without regard to the resources available
also brings unintentional tragedy — in the form
of the destruction of the common grazing area.
 Tragedy of the Commons The “commons” is any shared
resource, including air, water, energy sources, and food
supplies. The tragedy occurs when individuals consume
more than their share, with the cost of their doing so
dispersed among all, causing the ultimate collapse—the
tragedy—of the commons.
 When resources are not partitioned, people often
consume more than they realize (Herlocker & others,
1997). As a bowl of mashed potatoes is passed around
a table of 10, the first few diners are more likely to
scoop out a disproportionate share than when a platter
of 10 chicken drumsticks is passed.
 THE FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR
 First, both games tempt people to explain their
own behaviour situationally (“I had to protect
myself against exploitation by my opponent”) and
to explain their partners’ behaviour dispositionally
(“she was greedy,” “he was untrustworthy”). Most
never realize that their counterparts are viewing
them with the same fundamental attribution error
(Gifford & Hine, 1997; Hine & Gifford, 1996).
People with self inflating, self-focused narcissistic
tendencies are especially unlikely to empathize
with others’ perspectives (Campbell & others,
2005).
 EVOLVING MOTIVES
 Second, motives often change. At first, people are
eager to make some easy money, then to
minimize their losses, and finally to save face and
avoid defeat (Brockner & others, 1982; Teger,
1980).
 OUTCOMES NEED NOT SUM TO ZERO
 Third, most real-life conflicts, like the Prisoner’s
Dilemma and the Tragedy of the Commons, are
non-zero-sum games. The two sides’ profits and
losses need not add up to zero. Both can win; both
can lose.
 Non-zero-sum games - Games in which outcomes
need not sum to zero. With cooperation, both can
win; with competition, both can lose. (Also called
mixed motive situations. )
 REGULATION- It is a very basic step we can take
and implement to resolve social dilemmas.
 Fishing and hunting have long been regulated by
local seasons and limits; at the global level, an
International Whaling Commission sets an
agreed-upon “harvest” that enables whales to
regenerate. Likewise, where fishing industries,
such as the Alaskan halibut fishery, have
implemented “catch shares”—guaranteeing each
fisher a percentage of each year’s allowable
catch—competition and overfishing have been
greatly reduced (Costello & others, 2008).
 SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL There is another way to
resolve social dilemmas: Make the group small. In
a small commons, each person feels more
responsible and effective (Kerr, 1989). As a group
grows larger, people become more likely to think,
“I couldn’t have made a difference anyway”—a
common excuse for non cooperation (Kerr &
Kaufman-Gilliland, 1997).
 COMMUNICATION To resolve a social dilemma,
people must communicate. In the laboratory as in
real life, group communication sometimes
degenerates into threats and name-calling
(Deutsch & Krauss, 1960). More often,
communication enables people to cooperate
(Bornstein & others, 1988, 1989).
 Hostilities often arise when groups compete
for scarce jobs, housing, or resources.
When interests clash, conflict erupts.

 Competition breeds conflict especially

when people perceive that resources such
as money, jobs, or power are limited on a
zero-sum basis (one`s gain is another`s
loss), and a distinct out-group stands out
as a potential competitor (Esses & others,
2005).
 In an experiment to test the intensity of influence
competition has on conflict, Muzafer Sherif (1966),
used two groups of boys to test if limited resources
shared between the two groups would lead to
conflict. Unaware of the other group, Sherif had the
boys in each group work together to build their
campsites and let them get aquatinted with one
another. After friendships had been formed he
introduced the two groups to each other by putting
one group on the baseball field at the same time
the other group was supposed to use it. This
sudden fear of losing their resources to the other
group led the boys to strengthen their camaraderie
within their respective groups by mutual hostility
towards the rival group, where even affiliation to
the group meant immediate blacklisting.
  Perceived Injustice
“That’s unfair!” “What a rip-off!” “We deserve better!”
Such comments typify conflicts bred by perceived injustice
What is Justice:
-People perceive justice as equity- the distribution of rewards in
proportion to individuals’ contributions (Walster & others, 1978).
If you contribute more and benefit less than I do, you will feel exploited
and irritated; I may feel exploitative and guilty. Chances are, though, that
you will be more sensitive to the inequity than I will (Greenberg, 1986;
Messick & Sentis, 1979).
 When one feels as though their contribution to the
group is worthy of a greater reward, they are
either reminded of their inadequacies and become
submissive to their superiors, use personal attacks
or black-mail to get what they want, or actually
revolt against their superiors and try to overthrow
them(Elaine Hatfield, William Walster, Ellen
Pzersheid, 1978). On the other hand, it is very
unlikely that someone will bring attention to
themselves if they feel they are receiving more for
their contribution than necessary. In these cases
many will convince themselves that their work is
worthy of extra benefits. Also if one is made aware
that their skills exceed their reward they are more
likely to argue their worth, “The more competent
and worthy people feel, (the more they value their
inputs), the more they will feel under benefitted and
thus eager to retaliate”(Ross & others, 1971).
 Since conflict is the product of a perceived
incompatibility, it is likely that by misperception of
others actions, most conflicts are created. This
coincides with the concept of a self-serving bias, in
that we often take credit for our successes but
justify our mistakes. At the same time we tend to
judge others’ actions or motives more harshly than
our own, leading us to condemn others prematurely.
We can also attribute the fundamental attribution
error to our misperceptions in the sense that we are
more likely to be less considerate of others external
circumstances that factor into their actions, and this
gives us a one-dimensional perception of the other
which can be very inaccurate.
 Misperception

Many conflicts contain but a small truly

incompatible goals.
The bigger problem is the misperceptions
of the other’s motives and goals.
True
incompatibility
misperception
Seeds of Misperception

Fundamenta
Self-serving
Self-justify l attribution
bias
error

Preconceptio
Polarize Groupthink
ns

In-group
Stereotype
bias
MIRROR IMAGE PERCEPTION
 This the condition of reciprocal views of each other often
held by parties in conflict; for example, each may view itself
as moral and peace-loving and the other as evil and
aggressive.
 It is common for two rival groups to hold each other
responsible for same crimes and to consider themselves
moral and virtuous for the same reasons (Morton Deutsch,
1986). This is often the case in wartime, we see people in
only one of two categories; “for us or against us”. In
modern warfare it is seen as more diplomatic however for
us to say that it is not the general public that we are at war
with, but the evil regime that has contaminated it’s people
that we are against. This also gives us the appeal of a
knight in shining armour, trying to save the “good people”
from their “evil leaders”.
CONFLICT RESOLUTION (PEACEMAKING)

 Social psychologists have focused on four strategies

for conflict resolution or peacemaking.
Cont
 CONTACT act

Conc Coop
COOPERATION
4 Cs

iliatio erati
n on
 COMMUNICATION
Com
 CONCILIATION munic
ation
 • Does desegregation improve racial attitudes?
Sometimes.
 • When does desegregation improve racial
attitudes? When there is equal status contact.
 Many studies confirm the correlation between
contact and positive attitudes. For example, the
more interracial contact South African Blacks and
Whites have, the more sympathetic their policy
attitudes are to those of the other group (Dixon &
others, 2007). Anti-gay feeling is lower among
people who know gays personally (Herek, 1993).

 In colleges and universities, informal interactions

enabled by classroom ethnic diversity pay dividends
for all students(Gurin et al, 2002). Such interactions
tend to be intellectually growth-promoting and to
foster greater acceptance of difference.
 A cooperative approach aligns with the process which
leads parties to seek win-win solutions. Disputants
that work cooperatively to negotiate a solution are
more likely to develop a relationship of trust and come
up with mutually beneficial options for settlement.

 In a recent study, white youths on a two to three week

expedition involving intimate contact and cooperation
expressed improved attitudes towards Blacks a month
after the expedition if they had been randomly
assigned to an interracial expedition group(Green &
Wong, 2008).

• occurs when there is a common external threat.

• occurs when there is a superordinate goal.
• occurs when there is a cooperative
learning environment.
 Conflicting parties have other ways to resolve their
differences. They can communicate by bargaining,
mediation, or arbitration.
 Bargaining: Seeking an agreement to a conflict through
direct negotiation between parties.
 Tough bargaining may lower the other party`s
expectations, making the other side willing to settle for
less(Yukl, 1974).
 Mediation: An attempt by a neutral third party to resolve
a conflict by facilitating communication and offering
suggestions. A third party mediator may offer
suggestions that enable conflicting parties to make
concessions and still save face (Pruitt, 1998).
 Arbitration: Resolution of a conflict by a neutral third
party who studies both sides and imposes a settlement.
This is a commonly used practice in legal disagreements
as an alternative to the lengthy and expensive process of
going to court.
 Conciliation is a conflict resolution process whereby
the parties agree to utilize the services of a conciliator,
who then meets with the parties separately in an
attempt to resolve their differences. The main goal is
to conciliate, most of the time by seeking concessions.
 For example, in the 1970s small concessions by Israel
and Egypt (such as Israel allowing Egypt to open uo the
Suez Canal, Egypt allowing ships bound for Israel to
pass through) helped reduce tension to a point where
the negotiations became possible (Rubin, 1981).
 • Two important linkage strategies deserve attention
here. One is Graduated Reciprocation In Tension-
reduction (GRIT), & the other is a Tit-For-Tat (TFT)
strategy.
 • In the GRIT strategy, one of the parties in a conflict
unilaterally initiates a series of cooperative moves;
these are announced & reciprocity is invited, but the
conciliatory moves are continued for an extended
period, even without immediate reciprocity.
CONCLUSION
 Although conflicts are readily kindled and fueled by
social dilemmas, competition, perceived injustice, and
misperceptions, some equally powerful forces such as
contact, cooperation, communication, and conciliation
can transform hostility into harmony.
 Contacts are especially beneficial when people work
together to overcome a common threat. Several
research teams have replaced competitive classroom
learning situations with opportunities for cooperative
learning.
 Sometimes when genuine communication is
impossible, small conciliatory gestures by one party
may elicit reciprocal conciliatory acts by the other
party.