Managing Conflict

This next section will cover information to help you manage conflict more productively. We’ll explore a variety of ways to approach managing conflict and help you see when and where each of these approaches might make the most sense. We’ll look at the reality of unique personal perspectives, how they work to create conflict, and how using empathy and acknowledging the validity of different perspectives can contribute to resolutions.

We will look at the possible outcomes of conflicts. We will explore how our cultural bias leads us to approach all conflicts as a contest and how this often leaves us with a resolution we are not happy with. Finally, we’ll explore the dynamics of escalation and de-escalation.

Conflict Management Styles

Like most of the areas that are important in teaching and guiding children, awareness of choices and flexibility in implementing them are necessary for effective management of conflicts. Below you’ll find an explanation of six different management styles. Later, we’ll explore the pros and cons of each and when each might be the best style to use. The Appendix includes a Conflict Management Styles Survey that you may want to take before reading the explanation of those styles below. Having some information about your own preferences for these styles will deepen your understanding.

Six Conflict Management Styles

1. Directing/Controlling: “My way or the highway” or “This is not negotiable.”
   • We do not, cannot, or will not bargain or give in. We use this response when safety is an issue and/or we must respond immediately. At other times, we are standing up for our rights and deeply held beliefs. It can also mean pursuing what we want at the expense of another person. We may also be caught in a power struggle and not see a way to negotiate to get what we want. (This is a version of the FIGHT response.)
2. Collaborating: “Let’s work it out.”
   • We work with others to find mutually satisfying ways to get all of our needs met. We are interested in finding solutions and in maintaining or even improving the relationship. Other people involved are seen as partners rather than adversaries, and parties work together, share points of view, identify common interests, and explore alternatives before agreeing on a mutually satisfying solution.
3. Compromising: “Split the difference” or “Something is better than nothing.”
   • We seek the middle ground. Each party gives up something for a solution that may satisfy our needs only partially.
4. Accommodating: “Give in,” or Let it go,” or “It doesn’t matter anyway.”
   • We yield to another’s point of view, meeting the other person’s needs while denying our own. We may give in to smooth the relationship, or to get our way another time.
5. Avoiding/Denying: “Walk away” or “I don’t see a problem.”
   • We do not address the conflict, or we withdraw from the situation, or we behave as though the situation were not happening. We leave it to others to deal with. (This is a version of the FLIGHT response.)
6. Appealing to a Great Authority or a Third Party: “Help me out here.”
   • We turn to others whom we perceive as having more power, influence, authority, skills, or wisdom to solve the conflict.

The Advantages and Drawbacks of These Styles

As you read about these different styles, which ones did you think you might use more often? Were there some that you would never use? Below you’ll find information about when each of these might be the most useful one to adopt, as well as information about when you would not benefit from using that approach. (Before you read on, you might want to take the little self-assessment in the appendices if you haven’t already. It will tell you which styles you favor and which you don’t use.)

When you read through this next section, invite yourself to think about when your preferred approach might really serve you and find situations where you would want to challenge yourself to be more flexible and develop the ability to try different styles in certain situations.

Management Styles – Uses and Limitations

Directing/Controlling: “My way or the highway” or “This is not negotiable.”

Potential Uses: When immediate action is needed; when safety is a concern; when you believe you are right.

Potential Limitations: Intimidates people; it is hard for people to be open and honest; doesn’t allow for others to participate in problem-solving or to own the solution.

Collaborating: “Let’s work it out.”

Potential Uses: When there is time to develop mutually satisfying solutions, when parties see their needs as compatible, and when there are many points of view.

Potential Limitations: Requires enough time, skill, and commitment from all parties to work towards a solution; it’s a voluntary process.

Compromising: “Split the difference” or “Something is better than nothing.”

Potential Uses: Good for fast decision-making on minor issues; when parties are of equal strength; when the goals of both parties don’t seem compatible, and when there doesn’t seem to be a better solution.

Potential Limitations: Everyone may feel disappointed; a quick fix may not address underlying needs; it may only deal with surface conflict and leave significant issues unresolved.

Accommodating: “Give in,” or Let it go,” or “It doesn’t matter anyway.”

Potential Uses: When the relationship is more important than the current issue; when we want to demonstrate a willingness to be flexible; when you think you’ll get your turn later.

Potential Limitations: Pleasing others may be at the expense of meeting your own needs; if the same person is always in the accommodating role, one can feel like a “doormat”; being “nice” won’t necessarily solve the problem.

Avoiding/Denying: “Walk away” or “I don’t see a problem.”

Potential Uses: When confronting is unsafe or damaging; when the situation may resolve on its own accord; when it’s a battle not worth picking; when you want to buy time to cool down or make a plan.

Potential Limitations: Important issues may never be addressed, so the conflict can’t be resolved; conflict may escalate or resurface; emotions may be “stuffed down” and explode later.

Appealing to a Great Authority or a Third Party: “Help me out here.”

Potential Uses: When parties are unable to reach an agreement by themselves, when redress is possible from appropriate laws and rules, when we can’t adequately defend our own interests, when there is a power imbalance, and when someone can serve as an ally.

Potential Limitations: You lose control of the decision-making process; issues may get lost in bureaucracies or misinterpreted; authority may be prejudicial; it may take too long.

Point of View

Something that underlies many conflicts is the way individuals perceive and interpret their experiences. Although we usually assume that we see the world as it truly is, research in psychology suggests that perception is not purely objective. Instead, we interpret reality through our own unique “lenses,” shaped by our experiences, cultural backgrounds, knowledge, and emotional states.

These personal “point-of-view lenses” influence how we understand situations, interpret the behavior of others, and respond to challenges. As a result, two individuals can experience the same event but perceive it in very different ways. These differences in perception are a common source of misunderstanding and conflict.

There are many things that shape how we interpret shared reality. Culture, sex, age, experience, emotional states, and even inborn personality differences. Remember, it is all in our perspective.

From a developmental perspective, children do not simply absorb information from their environment; they interpret it. Jean Piaget emphasized that children actively construct knowledge by organizing their experiences into mental frameworks, or schemas, that help them make sense of the world (Piaget, 1952). As children, and adults, encounter new situations, we interpret them based on what we already know. Our perceptions, therefore,  is always shaped by prior experience.

Lev Vygotsky, along with other social constructivists, argued that learning and meaning-making are deeply influenced by social context, language, and shared experiences (Vygotsky, 1978). What we perceive as “normal,” “fair,” or “appropriate” is often shaped by the cultural environments in which we are raised. Early research by Bartlett (1932) and later work in cognitive psychology show that individuals interpret new information through existing schemas, often filling in gaps or altering details to fit prior expectations. As a result, perception is not a direct reflection of reality, but a reconstruction shaped by the mind.

One particularly important concept for understanding conflict is naïve realism, the tendency for individuals to believe that they see the world objectively, while assuming that others who disagree are uninformed, irrational, or biased (Ross & Ward, 1996). This belief can intensify conflict, because individuals may not recognize that their own perceptions are also shaped by personal experiences and assumptions.

In addition, individuals are influenced by confirmation bias, the tendency to notice, interpret, and remember information in ways that confirm existing beliefs while overlooking or discounting contradictory evidence (Nickerson, 1998). For example, if a person believes that another individual is unfriendly, they may focus on behaviors that support that belief while ignoring behaviors that suggest kindness or cooperation. Over time, this selective attention can reinforce misunderstandings and contribute to ongoing conflict as we accumulate a wealth of distorted memories that support our bias.

These perceptual processes are especially important in early childhood, where children are still developing the ability to interpret social situations accurately. Research has shown that some children, particularly those who have experienced harsh, inconsistent, or aggressive interactions, may develop what is known as a hostile attribution bias. This bias involves a tendency to interpret ambiguous social situations as having hostile intent, even when no harm was intended (Crick & Dodge, 1994).

For example, if one child accidentally bumps into another, a child with a hostile attribution bias may assume the action was intentional and respond with anger or aggression. In contrast, a child without this bias may interpret the same situation as an accident and respond more calmly. Over time, these patterns of interpretation can influence children’s social relationships and behavior, sometimes leading to cycles of conflict and rejection.

Understanding these differences in perception is essential for us in guiding and teaching children. When we recognize that children’s behavior is often based on how they interpret situations, not just what actually happened, we are better able to respond with empathy and guidance. Rather than simply correcting behavior, we can help children reconsider their interpretations, explore alternative explanations, and develop more accurate and flexible ways of understanding social interactions.

In this way, helping children become aware of their own “point-of-view lenses” is a critical step in reducing conflict and building social competence. By learning that others may see and experience situations differently, children begin to develop perspective-taking skills, empathy, and the ability to engage in more constructive and cooperative relationships.

How Conflict Ends

When a conflict resolves, it can end in one of four ways. These outcomes reflect whether the needs and goals of each person involved have been met or unmet.

Our culture and our experiences growing up invite us to address most conflicts as contests, where one person is going to win, and the other person is going to lose. As we discussed in very early chapters, we think that if we “win,” the other person has to “lose.” We talked about the pressure to “be number one”, which means everyone else is below us.

Competition can be fun in games and sports, but we’ve talked about how destructive that can be within communities and in classrooms. As we’ve also acknowledged, most conflict occurs within these communities, between people who love and care about each other. When a win-lose outcome is achieved in these situations, the outcome really becomes a lose-lose. How many times have young children wasted precious recess or play time arguing about who is first in line, with everyone losing out on fun?

I have hunted for years to find a cartoon I once saw in the New Yorker magazine. It showed a drawing of a mother, her hair a mess, her dress torn, with the lamp behind her knocked over. She is sitting on two children. The caption underneath said, “I finally showed them who’s boss!” The faces of the two children are beaming with smiles. They have also been trained to think of win-lose, and they don’t want to lose. The implication was that they were happy about the power they exercised over their mother.

Do you think the mother gets up and walks away, really proud of what she accomplished? I have done lessons in countless classrooms about “win-win” solutions. I have often asked children if they have ever used their power to get their way with a parent, like throwing a tantrum in a store to get something their parent had refused to buy originally. In asking them how they honestly felt about that, nobody felt good. We don’t want our parents, our children, our friends, our colleagues to really lose; we just don’t want to be the losers.

Positions vs. Needs and Interests

To understand how conflicts can move toward more constructive outcomes, it is important to distinguish between positions (wants) and underlying needs and interests.

Positions are the specific demands or solutions that we initially express during a conflict. For example, a child may say, “I want the truck,” or an adult may insist, “This is the way it has to be done.” These positions are often rigid and can lead to power struggles when individuals focus only on their stated demands.

In contrast, underlying needs and interests are the deeper motivations behind those positions. These may include needs for fairness, belonging, autonomy, recognition, or security. In the case of the child above, the need may have been simply to have fun with a toy. When we are able to identify and address these underlying needs, we are more likely to find solutions that satisfy both ourselves and the others in the conflict.

In conflicts between teachers and parents around a specific issue, when we can articulate the parent’s underlying need or value, and we can acknowledge that we have the same need, often the conflict immediately softens. Then the focus just becomes how to satisfy that need in ways that work at school.

Research in conflict resolution emphasizes that focusing on interests rather than positions increases the likelihood of reaching mutually beneficial agreements (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011). By shifting attention from “What do I want?” to “What do I need, and what does the other person need?” we open the door to creative problem-solving and collaboration.

How Conflict Moves: Escalation and De-escalation

Once conflict begins, it tends to move in one of two directions: it either escalates or de-escalates. Understanding this dynamic is essential for effectively guiding conflict, particularly in early childhood settings where emotions can quickly intensify. A way to think about this process, which is useful in teaching children about this dynamic, is through the metaphor of an escalator. When we step onto an escalator, it carries us in a direction, either upward or downward. In the same way, every response we make during a conflict either increases tension or helps to reduce it. Each interaction, each word, and each emotional reaction becomes a “step” that moves the conflict higher or lower.

When conflict escalates, it becomes more intense, more emotional, and more difficult to resolve. When it de-escalates, individuals become calmer, more reflective, and more capable of working toward a solution.

Escalators can move in two directions, and so can conflict.

When individuals respond with anger, blame, defensiveness, or hostility, they are on an upward-moving escalator. Each of these responses adds energy to the conflict, making it more difficult to stop or reverse. As the conflict rises, individuals may feel less understood, more threatened, and increasingly reactive.

In contrast, when individuals respond with calmness, empathy, active listening, and problem-solving, they step onto a downward-moving escalator. These responses reduce emotional intensity and create space for understanding and resolution.

Research on conflict and communication supports this idea. Escalation often occurs through patterns of negative interaction such as criticism, defensiveness, and contempt, while de-escalation is associated with behaviors such as validation, perspective-taking, and cooperative problem-solving (Gottman & Silver, 2015; Hocker & Wilmot, 2018).

What We Bring onto the Escalator

We do not enter conflict as blank slates, however. Each of us carries “baggage” that influences how we perceive and respond to situations. This baggage may include:

• Past experiences with similar conflicts
• Relationships with the individuals involved
• Cultural beliefs and expectations
• Personal biases and assumptions
• Current emotional state (fatigue, stress, frustration)
• Temperament and personality

These factors shape how we interpret events and how quickly we escalate or de-escalate. For example, an individual who has experienced repeated conflict or aggression may be more likely to interpret ambiguous situations as threatening and respond defensively.

In children, these influences are especially powerful. A child who arrives in class without breakfast, or after witnessing a big fight in their family, is not going to respond to an event that happens in the same way as they normally would. As discussed earlier, children who have repeatedly experienced harsh or inconsistent interactions may be more likely to interpret others’ actions as hostile, increasing the likelihood of escalation (Crick & Dodge, 1994).

Emotions: The Motor of the Escalator

If the escalator represents the movement of conflict, as conflict intensifies, emotional arousal increases. From a physiological perspective, this process involves activation of the sympathetic nervous system, which prepares the body for action—often referred to as the “fight or flight” response (Sapolsky, 2004). As emotional arousal increases, individuals have reduced access to the parts of the brain responsible for reasoning, problem-solving, and self-regulation. The higher we go on the escalator, the less our ‘pilot’ is in control. Daniel Goleman (1995) refers to this as an “Amygdala Hijack,” in which strong emotions override thoughtful decision-making.

This is especially relevant for young children, whose self-regulation skills are still developing. When children become overwhelmed by emotion, they are not choosing to behave poorly; they are temporarily unable to access the skills needed to respond constructively.

Common Escalators & De-escalators: What Moves Conflict Up or Down

Certain behaviors tend to escalate conflict. These responses increase emotional intensity and reduce the likelihood of resolution. Other behaviors help reduce conflict and support resolution. Research shows that emotional regulation and effective communication are key factors in successful conflict resolution (Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Eggum, 2010).

In in-person classes, I have students participate in several role-plays where they partner up and then participate in role-plays around different conflict situations. An example of one is: Person A has been in line at their bank for quite a long time during their limited lunch break. Just as they are next in line to see the teller, Person B comes up and takes “cuts” by stepping right in front of them. They start out back-to-back, but with “Lights, Camera, Action,” they turn to face their partner and role-play the scene.

After doing three of these, they again go back-to-back. I recount the three different scenarios and invite them to remember what happened and how they felt. Then they turn to face their partner one last time and share what they noticed that escalated or de-escalated the conflict. In the whole class discussion that follows, these are the things that come up consistently.

Implications for Early Childhood Education and Guidance

Much of the heart of guidance, the situations where we are responsible for managing children’s behavior, is in reality a conflict between the child and us. Understanding how conflict escalates and de-escalates has critical implications for how we handle these situations. In all of our interventions with children, we need to remember that we control the next step on the escalator. We can either do something that makes the situation move toward calm and a resolution, or do something that takes it up the escalator, where everyone involved becomes less capable of thinking clearly and choosing wisely.

When we become more skillful in de-escalating conflicts, we not only stay in a position where we can be purposeful and effective in handling challenging behaviors, but we also are able to model and teach children how they can manage conflict.

Over time, children learn that they have choices in how they respond to conflict. They begin to understand that while they may not control what happens to them, they can learn to control how they respond. Helping children recognize and manage the “escalator of conflict” is an essential step in developing emotional regulation, empathy, and constructive social skills.

References

1. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
2. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74–101.
3. Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Emotion-related self-regulation and its relation to children’s maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 495–525.
4. Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin Books
5. Florida, R. (2014). The rise of the creative class—revisited (Rev. ed.). Basic Books.
6. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. Bantam Books.
7. Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (2015). The seven principles for making marriage work (Revised ed.). Harmony Books.
8. Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (2018). Interpersonal conflict (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
9. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.
10. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press.
11. Sapolsky, R. M. (2004). Why zebras don’t get ulcers (3rd ed.). Holt Paperbacks
12. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.