Editing Conflict resolution (section)

== Theories and models ==
There are a plethora of different theories and models linked to the concept of conflict resolution. A few of them are described below.

=== Conflict resolution curve ===
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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Das |first1=Tuhin K. |title=Regret Analysis Towards Conflict Resolution |date=2018 |journal=SSRN |doi=10.2139/ssrn.3173490 |ssrn=3173490 |s2cid=216920077 }}</ref> 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. 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 conflicting entities to some negotiable points on CRC is important before peace building. CRC does not exist (i.e., singular) in reality if the aggression of the aggressor is certain. Under such circumstances it might lead to apocalypse with mutual destruction.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Das |first1=Tuhin K. |title=Conflict Resolution Curve: Concept and Reality |journal=SSRN |date=2018 |doi=10.2139/ssrn.3196791 |ssrn=3196791 |s2cid=219337801 }}</ref>
 
The curve explains why nonviolent struggles ultimately toppled repressive regimes and sometimes forced leaders to change the nature of governance. Also, this methodology has been applied to capture conflict styles on the Korean Peninsula and dynamics of negotiation processes.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Das |first1=Tuhin K. |last2=Datta Ray |journal=SSRN |first2=Ishita |title=North Korea's Peace Building in the Light of Conflict Resolution Curve |date=2018 |doi=10.2139/ssrn.3193759 |ssrn=3193759}}</ref>

===Dual concern model===
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]]).<ref name=F/>

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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Goldfien |first1=Jeffrey H. |last2=Robbennolt |first2=Jennifer K. |date=2007 |title=What if the lawyers have their way? An empirical assessment of conflict strategies and attitudes toward mediation styles. |journal=Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution |volume=22 |issue=2 |pages=277–320 }}</ref> The dual model identifies five [[group conflict|conflict]] resolution styles or strategies that individuals may use depending on their dispositions toward pro-self or [[prosocial behavior|pro-social]] goals.
 
'''Avoidance conflict style'''
: Characterized by joking, changing or avoiding the topic, or even denying that a problem exists, 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.<ref group=nb>For example, in Chinese culture, reasons for avoidance include sustaining a good mood, protecting the avoider, and other philosophical and spiritual reasonings (Feng and Wilson 2011).{{full citation needed|date=December 2014}}</ref> During conflict, these avoiders adopt a "wait and see" attitude, often allowing conflict to phase out on its own without any personal involvement.<ref name=J>{{cite journal |last1=Bayazit |first1=Mahmut |last2=Mannix |first2=Elizabeth A |date=2003 |title=Should I stay or should I go? Predicting team members intent to remain in the team.Placed there on purpose with unlieing motives. |journal=Small Group Research |volume=32 |issue=3 |pages=290–321 |doi=10.1177/1046496403034003002 |s2cid=144220387 }}</ref> By neglecting to address high-conflict situations, avoiders risk allowing problems to fester or spin out of control.

'''Accommodating conflict style'''
: In contrast, yielding, "accommodating", smoothing or [[thought suppression|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.<ref name=F/> When faced with conflict, individuals with an accommodating conflict style tend to harmonize into others' demands out of respect for the social relationship. With this sense of yielding to the conflict, individuals fall back to others' input instead of finding solutions with their own intellectual resolution.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Morrison|first=Jeanne|date=2008|title=The relationship between emotional intelligence competencies and preferred conflict-handling styles|journal=Journal of Nursing Management|language=en|volume=16|issue=8|pages=974–983|doi=10.1111/j.1365-2834.2008.00876.x|pmid=19094110|issn=1365-2834|doi-access=free}}</ref>

'''Competitive conflict style'''
: The [[Competition|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.<ref name=F/> Fighters tend to force others to accept their personal views by employing competitive power tactics (arguments, insults, accusations or even violence) that foster intimidation.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Morrill |first1=Calvin |year=1995 |title=The Executive Way: Conflict Management in Corporations |url=https://archive.org/details/executivewayconf00morr |location=Chicago, US |publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]] |isbn=978-0-226-53873-0 |lccn=94033344 }}</ref>

'''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.<ref name=J/> By accepting some demands put forth by others, compromisers believe this agreeableness will encourage others to meet them halfway, thus promoting conflict resolution.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Van de Vliert |first1=Evert |last2=Euwema |first2=Martin C. |date=1994 |title=Agreeableness and activeness as components of conflict behaviors. |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=66 |issue=4 |pages=674–687 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.674 |pmid=8189346 }}</ref> This conflict style can be considered an extension of both "yielding" and "cooperative" strategies.<ref name=F/>

'''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.<ref name=J/> By seeing conflict as a creative opportunity, collaborators willingly invest time and resources into finding a "win-win" solution.<ref name=F/> 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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sternberg |first1=Robert J. |last2=Dobson |first2=Diane M. |date=1987 |title=Resolving interpersonal conflicts: An analysis of stylistic consistency. |journal=[[Journal of Personality and Social Psychology]] |volume=52 |issue=4 |pages=794–812 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.52.4.794 |issn=0022-3514 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Jarboe |first1=Susan C. |last2=Witteman |first2=Hal R. |date=1996 |title=Intragroup conflict management in task-oriented groups: The influence of problem sources and problem analyses. |journal=Small Group Research |volume=27 |issue=2 |pages=316–338 |doi=10.1177/1046496496272007 |s2cid=145442320 }}</ref>

=== Relational dialectics theory ===
Relational dialectics theory (RDT), introduced by [[Leslie A. Baxter|Leslie Baxter]] and Barbara Matgomery (1988),<ref>Baxter, L. A. (1988). A dialectical perspective of communication strategies in relationship development. In S. Duck. (Ed.) Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 257–273). New York: Wiley.</ref><ref>Montgomery, Barbara. (1988). "A Dialectical Analysis of the Tensions, Functions and Strategic Challenges of Communication in Young Adult Friendships,"Communication Yearbook 12, ed. James A. Anderson (Newbury, CA: Sage), 157–189.</ref> 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.

The main concepts of RDT are:

* 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 in a relationship despite opposing wants and needs

=== Strategy of conflict ===
Strategy of conflict, by [[Thomas Schelling]], is the study of negotiation during conflict and [[Strategic management|strategic behavior]] that results in the development of "conflict behavior". This idea is based largely on [[game theory]]. In "A Reorientation of Game Theory", 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.

=== Peace and conflict studies ===

Within [[peace and conflict studies]] a definition of conflict resolution is presented in [[Peter Wallensteen|Peter Wallensteen's]] book ''Understanding Conflict Resolution'':

{{Blockquote|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.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Understanding conflict resolution|last=Wallensteen|first=Peter|publisher=SAGE Publications|year=2015|isbn=9781473902107|edition= Fourth|location=Los Angeles|pages=57|oclc=900795950}}</ref>}}

The "conflicting parties" concerned in this definition are formally or informally organized groups engaged in intrastate or interstate conflict.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Understanding conflict resolution|last=Wallensteen |first=Peter|date=7 May 2015|isbn=9781473902107|edition= Fourth|location=Los Angeles|pages=20|oclc=900795950}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/definitions/#Warring_party_2|title="Actors" definition – Department of Peace and Conflict Research – Uppsala University, Sweden|last=Allansson|first=Marie|website=pcr.uu.se|language=en|access-date=2019-09-25}}</ref><ref name="Larson">{{cite journal |last1=Larson |first1=Jennifer M. |title=Networks of Conflict and Cooperation |journal=Annual Review of Political Science |date=11 May 2021 |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=89–107 |doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-102523 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Balcells">{{cite journal |last1=Balcells |first1=Laia |last2=Stanton |first2=Jessica A. |title=Violence Against Civilians During Armed Conflict: Moving Beyond the Macro- and Micro-Level Divide |journal=Annual Review of Political Science |date=11 May 2021 |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=45–69 |doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-102229 |doi-access=free}}</ref>
'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.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Understanding conflict resolution|last=Wallensteen |first=Peter |date=7 May 2015|isbn=9781473902107|edition= Fourth|location=Los Angeles|pages=17|oclc=900795950}}</ref>

===Peacebuilding theory===
{{Excerpt|Peacebuilding#Theory of peacebuilding}}

=== Conflict resolution mechanisms ===
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.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Understanding conflict resolution|last=Wallensteen |first=Peter |date=7 May 2015|isbn=9781473902107|edition= Fourth|location=Los Angeles|pages=41|oclc=900795950}}</ref> In ''Understanding Conflict Resolution'' Wallensteen draws from the works of [[Lewis A. Coser]], [[Johan Galtung]] and [[Thomas Schelling]], and presents seven distinct theoretical mechanisms for conflict resolutions:<ref>{{Cite book|title=Understanding conflict resolution|last=Wallensteen |first=Peter |date=7 May 2015|isbn=9781473902107|edition= Fourth|location=Los Angeles|pages=56–58|oclc=900795950}}</ref>

# 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.
# 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.
# ''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.
# 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. 
# 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. 
# 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.
# 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.