Assumptions About Conflict

Since the 1970s, communication scholars have embraced common assumptions about the nature of conflict. These assumptions cluster into three categories: (1) the subjective/objec- tive basis, (2) the normalcy of conflict, and (3) the functional versus dysfunctional nature of it.

SubjectiveObjective Basis of Conflict. One of the key debates at the 1972 conference was whether conflict was “out there” in the real world or whether parties had to perceive or socially construct it (Miller, 1974; Simons, 1974b; Steinfatt & Miller, 1974). Not sur­prisingly, the empirical scholars emphasized the physical aspects of conflict, for example, scarce resources, and economic and material bases of struggles, while the phenomenologists argued for subjective definitions. Other schol­ars believed that objective situational factors gave rise to perceived conflicts that became altered by material circumstances (Mortensen, 1974). But even scholars who embraced both perspectives had a decidedly receiver-oriented view of communication.

The growth of social construction, critical theory, and postmodernism in the field called the objective-subjective dimension into question. Specifically, scholars posited four alternative perspectives: (1) the cognitive, (2) systems­interactional, (3) symbolic-interpretive, and (4) critical (Wilson, Paulson, & Putnam, 2001).

The cognitive or psychological approach advanced the belief that subjective mental processes shaped conflict behaviors, while the systems-interactional scholars focused on iden­tifying behaviors, messages, and sequential patterns of conflict development. Interpretive/ symbolic scholars centered on subjective mean­ings, conflict narratives, metaphors, and nego­tiated orders. Some critical theorists invoked both objective and subjective features through examining how conflict entered into the pro­duction and reproduction of social struc­tures (Putnam & Poole, 1987).

Normalcy of Conflict. As previously noted, participants at the 1972 conference objected to the belief that conflict was an aberration that disrupted harmony. Communication scholars typically assumed that conflict was natural, inevitable, and normal. Moreover, scholars also concurred that conflicts were both rational and irrational and that they dif­fered in intensity, disposition, frequency, and salience. Research, however, often presumed the existence of these dimensions rather than focusing on how to operationalize them.

For instance, early research on conflict styles deemed confrontation or problem solv­ing as the most effective and most satisfac­tory of the five styles (Burke, 1970). Yet, when researchers tested conflict dimensions, they discovered that the choice and effective­ness of a particular style depended on the perceived importance of the issue in dispute, the significance of preserving the parties’ relationship, time pressures for managing the conflict, and cultural backgrounds of the par­ticipants (Folger et al., 2005). Thus, scholars concurred that conflicts were a normal and natural part of everyday life and that specific dimensions influenced how parties chose to handle them.

Conflict as Functional and Dysfunctional. Similarly, communication scholars believed that conflict could be functional and dysfunc­tional. Conflict was highly beneficial in pre­venting system stagnation, stimulating interest and curiosity, fostering cohesiveness within groups, operating as a safety valve to express problems, and invoking change. In contrast, it could be detrimental to relationships, produce inflexible behavior, lead to decreased com­munication, and result in escalated stalemates (Coser, 1956; Deutsch, 1973). While scholars adhered to both assumptions, they have rarely studied conflict’s productive contributions.

Thus, communication scholars typically focused on preventing destructive or highly escalatory conflicts. Destructive conflicts were the ones in which disputants ignored the origi­nal goals and, instead, aimed at hurting or anni­hilating each other (Deutsch, 1973). Destructive conflicts escalated through expanding the size and number of conflict issues, relying on power strategies and tactics, and increasing the costs that participants were willing to bear. In effect, communication investigators embraced the assumption that conflict was beneficial and productive, but they centered their research on preventing destructive conflict patterns.

Overall, communication scholars typically employed similar definitions, but they parted ways in highlighting different features of conflict. The field made strides in distin­guishing conflict from related concepts, cen­tering less on disagreements and more on incompatibilities, and distinguishing conflict interaction from persuasion and other types of communication. A form of unified diver­sity existed in which researchers differed but accepted alternative theoretical perspectives and approaches. Moreover, scholars typi­cally concurred that conflict was normal and beneficial, yet research focused primarily on preventing destructive conflicts rather than on understanding productive ones.

Conflict Models

These definitions and assumptions under­lie the conflict models that communication researchers employ. Eager to integrate inter­action into the interdisciplinary domain of conflict research, early communication schol­ars relied on models developed outside of the field, but as conflict studies have grown, new approaches have expanded the theoretical domains of traditional research. This section provides a critical overview of four models widely used in communication and conflict research: (1) integrative and distributive nego­tiation, (2) the dual concern model, (3) the intergroup conflict model, and (4) mediation competency.