Dimensions of Conflict Definitions
Specifically, conflict centers on incompatibilities, an expressed struggle, and interdependence among two or more parties (see Table 1.2). These features are similar to the ones that conflict theorists such as Fink (1968) and Mack and Snyder (1957) developed in the 1960s.
Incompatibility refers to mutually exclusive or diametrically opposed goals, values, or beliefs. Most communication scholars treat incompatibilities as rooted in perceptionsTable 1.1 A Sample of Common Definitions of Communication and Conflict
| Author | Date, Page | Definition |
| Mortensen | 1974, p. 93 | “an expressed struggle over incompatible interests in the distribution of limited resources” |
| Simons | 1974b, p. 8 | “that state of a social relationship in which incompatible interests between two or more people give rise to a struggle between them” |
| Hocker and Wilmot | 1978, p. 9 | “Conflict is an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals.” |
| Ting Toomey | 1985, p. 72 | “Conflict... is conceptually defined as a form of intense interpersonal and /or intrapersonal dissonance (tension or antagonism) between two or more interdependent parties based on incompatible goals, needs, desires, values, beliefs/or attitudes.” |
| Putnam and Poole | 1987, p. 552 | “Conflict... is defined as the interaction of interdependent people who perceive opposition of goals, aims, and values, and who see the other party as potentially interfering with the realization of these goals.” |
| Pearce and Littlejohn | 1997, p. 55 | “Moral conflict occurs when disputants are acting within incommensurate grammars... or different forms of life overlap” |
Table 1.1 (Continued)
| Author | Date, Page Definition |
| Ting-Toomey and Oetzel | 2001, p. 17 “Intercultural conflict is defined... as the experience of emotional frustration in conjunction with perceived incompatibility of values, norms, face orientations, goals, scare resources, processes, and/ or outcomes between a minimum of two parties from two different cultural communities in an interactive situation.” |
| Folger, Poole, and Stutman | 2005, p. 4 “Conflict is the interaction of interdependent people who perceive incompatibility and the possibility of interference from others as a result of this incompatibility.” |
Table 1.2 Components of Conflict Definitions
| Author | Scope | Nature of Action | Relationship | Communication | Context Features |
| Mortenson (1974) | Incompatible interests | Expressed struggle | Distribution | Limited resources | |
| Simons (1974b) | Incompatible interests | Struggle between them | Social relationship between two or more people | Includes symbolic acts | |
| Hocker and Wilmot (1978) | Incompatible goals | Expressed struggle, interference in achieving goals | At least two interdependent parties | Scarce resources | |
| Ting Toomey (1985) | Incompatible goals, needs, desires, values, beliefs | Dissonance, tension, antagonism | Interpersonal and intrapersonal, two or more interdependent parties | Symbolic action, patterned sense of symbols and meanings | Regulated by culture |
| Putnam and Poole (1987) | Perceived opposition of goals, aims, values | Other party potentially interferes with goals | Interdependent people | Interaction | |
| Pearce and Littlejohn (1997) | Incommensurate grammars, different forms of life | Acting within | Disputants |
(Continued)
Table 1.1 (Continued)
| Author | Scope | Nature of Action | Relationship | Communication | Context Features |
| Ting- Toomey and Oetzel (2001) | Perceived incompatibility of values, norms, face orientations, goals, processes, outcomes | Emotional frustration | Minimum of two parties | Two different cultural communities, scarce resources | |
| Folger, Poole, and Stutman (2005) | Perceived incompatibility | Possible interference from others | Interdependent people | Interaction, exchange of messages |
or located in cultures. In effect, parties may hold compatible goals, but they do not necessarily see them as congruent.
Interdependence among parties typically means that individuals need each other to achieve their goals. Some scholars see interdependence as rooted in the mixed motives of cooperating and competing simultaneously (Putnam, 1985), while others treat relationships, structures, or culture as the source of this interdependence (Cahn, 1990; Canary & Cupach, 1988).In essence, different nuances underlie the same words that scholars use in conflict definitions. Most communication scholars believe that some form of interaction is fundamental to the notion of conflict itself—as the expressed struggle, the nature of the relationship, or the strategies and tactics used. Yet scholars differ as to whether communication is a particular type of social interaction, exchanges of verbal and nonverbal messages, inconsistencies between messages, defensive communication, symbolic acts, negative interpersonal expressions, or even acts of defiance and violence (Canary, Cupach, & Messman, 1995; Miller, 1974).
Rather than define conflict, Canary et al. (1995) set forth dimensions in which interpersonal conflicts vary, particularly in terms of specific versus nonspecific behaviors and distinct episodes versus a continual process. Similar concerns are evident in defining moral and intractable conflicts in which episodes come and go, and the management of a conflict becomes rooted in identities, relationships, and social institutions (Jameson, 2003; Pearce & Littlejohn, 1997; Putnam & Wondolleck, 2003). Thus, conflict definitions across the field are generally similar, but they also differ in types and emphasis.
Distinguishing Among Types of Conflict. The crux of defining conflict, however, rests on differentiating it from related concepts, such as hostility, disagreement, and misunderstanding. One contribution that Keltner (1994) made to the field was to develop a struggle spectrum in which he showed how types of conflict differed across processes, relationships, communication, intervention, and outcomes.
Through this spectrum, researchers could differentiate among related concepts, such as disagreements, disputes, and wars. This conceptualization also addressed Simons’s (1974b) concern that most conflict definitions center too much on rational situations and ignore nonrealistic or highly volatile conflicts. At the level of theory, however, Keltner’s (1994) model is untested, particularly in its assumption that conflict develops from mild differences to campaigns and wars. This assumption needs to be fleshed out and tested. Overall, though, researchers concur that different degrees of conflict development exist and can be arrayed on a struggle spectrum.Distinguishing Communication in Conflict. Scholars have also made progress in distinguishing conflict from other types of social interaction, such as influence tactics, group decision making, persuasion, and argumentation (Roloff, Putnam, & Anastasiou, 2003). Using influence tactics, such as threats, coercion, and power plays, to produce compliance may occur during conflict situations, but conflict is a broader form of social interaction than is compliance gaining. Conflicts also occur during group decision making, but groups engage in forms of interaction other than conflict.
Persuasion, defined as convincing a person to do something that he or she would not normally do, and argumentation, as the process of asserting claims and supporting them with reasoning, surface in a variety of situations that lie outside of perceived incompatibilities. Conflict communication employs persuasion and argumentation, but these terms are not synonymous with conflict itself. For example, studies in interpersonal conflicts have focused on serial argumentation on the same issue in which the parties have not reached satisfactory agreement (Trapp & Hoff, 1985). Because they remain unresolved, the issues are likely to resurface in future interactions and form the basis of incompatibilities. Research has focused on serial argument characteristics, behaviors, coping strategies, and specific goals that characterized these types of interpersonal conflicts (Bevan, Hale, & Williams, 2004; K. L. Johnson & Roloff, 1998, 2000). Even though the studies center on serial argumentation, the arguments form patterns or strategies for addressing the expressed struggle over the incompatible issue.
Overall, communication scholars often use the same language to define conflict. In unpacking these definitions, however, scholars differ as to which features are central to their investigations. Communication scholars also distinguish conflict communication from other types of social interaction, including persuasion, argumentation, compliance gaining, and group decision making. In effect, the field has made headway since the 1970s in identifying the scope and essential components of conflict, but more attention is needed to explain the relationships between communication and conflict.