When one party feels that further talking is useless, and start acting without consulting the other side, the conflict slips into stage 3. At stage 3, the parties no longer believe that further talk will resolve anything, and they shift their attention to actions. Things that people share common interests, shared spaces etc are put to one side, and now people see only competitors.
This will usually mean that previous verbal agreements are no longer seen as valid or to be trusted, and once trust completely breaks down, conflict quickly escalates. At stage 4 the conflict is no longer about concrete issues, but about victory or defeat. The negative other-image comprises prejudices and attributions of motives and intentions, but does not yet, as in stage 5, deny the basic moral integrity of the counterpart as someone deserving to be treated justly see below.
However the negative image is the frame that people use when interacting with each other and stops people from seeing each other as individuals with similarly complex needs and wants. If presented with how they are viewed by the other side, each party will reject that simplified view for themselves, but will apply it to the other side. In this stage, the parties actively try to enlist support from bystanders. The parties also consciously seek to stage their confrontations in public, in order to recruit supporters.
The threshold to stage 5 is constituted by acts that lead to a public loss of face for one or both parties. If the basic honour of someone is offended repeatedly and deliberately, in particular in a public setting, the conflict is highly likely to slip into stage 5. The transition to stage 5 is particularly dramatic. The public loss of status polarises people as the action creating this means that positions the parties hold are no longer regarded in terms of superiority and inferiority, but in terms of good and evil.
The counterpart is no longer only irritating and denying basic needs, but something almost evil. In stage 5 the image of the counterpart centers on the moral inferiority attributed to the other. The conflict is no longer about concrete issues, but about the absolute moral matters and values of who is right and wrong. The transformation of the image of the other side drastically increases the role of negative expectations and suspiciousness.
All seemingly constructive moves of the counterpart are dismissed as deceptions, while one single negative incident is conclusive proof of the true nature of the other.
This leads to a situation where it is extremely difficult to build mutual confidence. The gestures needed for establishing minimal trust in the sincerity of the other side become extreme, and are often felt to be humiliating.
For example, in order to prove a sincere constructive intention, one side might be asked to make a public apology for past statements. In this deadlock, denigrating the other side may be the only visible option for gaining a moral upper hand. Incidents leading to loss of face are usually followed by dedicated attempts by the parties to rehabilitate their public reputation of integrity and moral credibility.
Such efforts may now dominate the conflict process. Loss of face, and ensuing retaliatory acts often isolate the conflict parties from bystanders. This may further exacerbate the escalation mechanisms, because the opportunities for getting tempering feedback about the conflict are reduced. The threshold to stage 6 is felt to be less dramatic than to stage 5. When the parties start to issue ultimatums and strategic threats, the conflict enters stage 6. Both sides will often issues threats to show they will not budge or lose credibility.
Often these threats are issued as ultimatums- either you do this or else.. Once these threats are made, both sides are rapidly losing any control they may have had on the situation. Both sides essentially force the other to respond more radically and increase the likelihood of violence- as we know a threat to violence only is credible if people are willing to carry it out see Power section. Threats ultimately lead to one party feeling that in order to avoid these threats being carried out, they need to weaken the other side, which leads to stage 7.
It is no longer possible for either side to see a solution that includes their opposite party. Both sides now seek to eliminate the opposition by targeted attacks aiming to maim the other. The counterpart is now a pure enemy, and has no longer human qualities.
They will either attack or withdraw. So Tom has a couple of options, one of them being to attack or launch a counter offensive and say something like. This approach is definitely a combative fight response. Tom might, however, have a flight response and not feel able to voice his anger openly. In which case, he might not say these things out aloud, but would most certainly be thinking them.
After maybe a few rounds of counter attacking and verbal exchanges, the conflict moves to the next stage. This behaviour serves two purposes: first, we gain the moral support of others so that we can count on their support later and, secondly, it serves to reinforce and strengthen our position and confirm that we were right to react in the way that we did.
Susan and Theresa had been business partners in their professional practice for 20 years. The practice was very successful, but Susan and Theresa had grown apart in lifestyles, goals, and attitudes. They did not discuss these changes with each other. Instead, as is so often the case, they let small annoyances fester. After awhile, they stopped communicating. Business was conducted through memos or their staff. Theresa retained a lawyer, who advised her to file a partnership dissolution action.
Her lawyer, seeking maximum impact, had the complaint served on Susan two days before Christmas while Susan was at home with her family. Susan, outraged, retained the toughest lawyer she could find. The case became expensive. Clients were caught in the fight and left the firm. The office was in chaos.
At Theresa's deposition, Susan's lawyer was very aggressive, suggesting by the questions that Theresa had committed fraud, when that was not the case. Theresa, furious at Susan, refused to consider any overture of settlement. Finally, after months of acrimonious pretrial preparation and tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses, the parties became financially and physically exhausted. On the advice of their lawyers, they agreed to mediation and after three days of discussions the partnership issues were resolved.
This case illustrates the power and danger of conflict escalation. Conflict escalation is a gradual regression from a mature to immature level of emotional development. The psychological process develops step by step in a strikingly reciprocal way to the way we grow up.
In other words, as conflicts escalate through various stages, the parties show behaviors indicating movement backward through their stages of emotional development. Escalation is charted in five phases, each having its own characteristics and triggers. Stage One is part of normal, everyday life. Even good relationships have moments of conflict.
0コメント