A Holistic View on Conflict: The Behaviour, Attitude, and Contradiction Triangle (ABC)
- Tunç Karaçay
- Apr 28
- 6 min read
The search for clarity is not only a concept in psychology but also a fundamental human need. The human mind does not feel comfortable with uncertainty. Trying to find direction in murky waters often brings anxiety with it. In contrast, looking into clear water where the bottom is visible gives us a sense of where we stand, even if we cannot fully grasp its depth.
This search for clarity also applies to the concepts we try to make sense of. Especially when we try to understand conflict, this ambiguity becomes more visible. Conflict situations are rarely clear. What we see on the surface, arguments, disagreements, raised voices, are often only reflections of much deeper underlying dynamics.
At this point, Johan Galtung, a prominent figure in peace studies who has contributed not only through theory but also through practical engagement in conflict resolution and peace processes, offers a powerful perspective.
Galtung invites us to look beyond visible tensions and disputes, encouraging us to ask not only what is happening but also why it is happening. He emphasized the importance of analysis in order to adopt this broader perspective and, in this context, developed analytical tools.
As we have discussed in our previous articles on conflict analysis tools, the key question is not which tool we use, but rather what we need at a given moment. Looking at the literature, we encounter many analysis tools developed by different theorists to respond to this need. For example, if we want to understand the cause and effect relationships of a conflict, we may use the conflict tree. If we want to explore the needs, interests, and positions of the parties, the onion model can be useful. If we want to map relationships and understand their nature, conflict mapping may be more appropriate. In some cases, using multiple tools together helps us better understand the different layers of a conflict.
In short, as we begin to see the dynamics of a conflict more clearly, we also become more aware of which tool we actually need.
This is exactly where the ABC Triangle developed by Galtung opens a powerful door. If a situation suggests that there is something beyond observable behaviour, in other words if perceptions, emotions, and deeper contradictions are involved, this model becomes especially useful. In this article, we aim to take a closer look at this analytical tool and explore how it helps us understand the layers we frequently encounter in everyday life.
This triangle allows us to understand conflict not only through observable behaviour but also through attitudes and contradictions, offering a more holistic perspective.
How Does This Triangle Work?
Let us imagine a triangle, something familiar from geometry classes. This time, however, we are not calculating its area or analyzing its angles. Instead, we focus only on its corners.
At the center of the triangle, we place conflict. At each corner, we see familiar letters: A, B, and C. Each corner represents a different dimension of conflict.
Let us start with A.
Attitude refers to how parties perceive each other and the conflict itself. It reflects what is happening internally. What do we feel and think? How do we see the other person? Is there trust or resentment? Are we trying to understand, or have we already made our judgment? This is one of the most powerful yet often invisible dimensions of conflict.
Moving to B, things become more visible.
Behaviour includes everything we can observe from the outside. Raised voices, arguments, distancing, or attempts to reconcile. In short, it is the outward expression of what is happening internally.
And then we have C: Contradiction, which in some sources is also referred to as context, represents the core issue. In reality, contradiction and context are not entirely separate concepts. They are often intertwined. Context provides the ground on which contradictions emerge, while contradictions take shape and become visible within that context. In this article, we will focus on contradiction to keep the discussion more concrete.
This is where we reach the root of the conflict. Why do the parties disagree? What do they want? Which needs, expectations, or interests are in tension? This is where the essence of the conflict lies.
These three corners represent different dimensions of conflict, and when considered together, they allow us to see the whole picture.
Understanding these three dimensions can be truly eye opening. In daily life, in the news, and in workplaces, our attention often shifts toward behaviour. We focus on what was said, whether someone raised their voice, or how a situation escalated. In other words, we tend to understand conflict through what is visible.
According to Galtung, however, this means we are only looking at the surface. What really matters is being able to see what lies beneath. His approach encourages us to read conflict not only through observable behaviour but also through underlying attitudes and deeper structural contradictions. Only then can we grasp the full picture.
What Does the ABC Triangle Tell Us: An Example from the Workplace
This analytical tool is not merely theoretical. It becomes quite visible in everyday life, especially in work environments. Let us explore it through a simple example.
Imagine two colleagues working in the same team, Selin and Emre. Recently, small disagreements have started to occur between them. In meetings, Emre interrupts Selin, and Selin responds in a more distant and tense manner. This is where most of us focus, the Behaviour dimension. We ask questions like who said what, whether voices were raised, or whether the meeting became tense.
However, when we look deeper at the Attitude dimension, a different picture begins to emerge. Selin starts to feel that Emre does not take her seriously. Emre, on the other hand, sees Selin as overly sensitive and resistant to feedback. These perceptions and emotions create an invisible ground that feeds their behaviour.
Going even deeper, we reach the Contradiction dimension. The issue is not only interpersonal. There may be unclear role distribution within the team. Job descriptions might be ambiguous or even conflicting with managerial expectations. Both Selin and Emre find themselves involved in overlapping responsibilities, which naturally creates competition and tension.
In such a case, how would a conventional conflict intervention look? A manager who ignores this triangle might focus only on behaviour and say something like this: In this office, we do not raise our voices and we avoid behaviour that creates tension. This type of intervention addresses only the Behaviour dimension.
Galtung’s model shows us that this is not enough. The real issue is not controlling behaviour, but understanding and transforming the attitudes and contradictions that shape that behaviour.
A meaningful intervention therefore focuses not only on what is visible, but also on what is hidden. Without addressing the perceptions between Selin and Emre, understanding how these perceptions were formed, and resolving role ambiguities within the team, any intervention remains incomplete.
This is why resolving conflict is often not about fixing behaviour, but about reshaping relationships and structures.
Otherwise, suppressed behaviour tends to reappear in different forms. This leads us to an important question: Are we truly building a solution, or are we simply silencing the conflict?
As mentioned at the beginning, the human mind seeks clarity. Uncertainty challenges us. This is why we wanted to introduce a simple yet powerful framework that responds to this need for clarity. Although the triangle formed by the letters A, B, and C may seem simple at first glance, it offers a deep perspective on understanding conflict. Focusing on only one corner, for example behaviour, will always give us an incomplete picture. Looking at attitudes, behaviours, and contradictions together may seem more demanding. It requires more reflection and patience. However, when we consider the benefits of improved relationships and sustainable solutions, this effort is well worth it.
So, do we usually approach conflicts from a holistic perspective, or do we focus only on what is visible? In our daily lives and work environments, which corner of this triangle do we tend to stay in? What do your own experiences tell you?
Thank you for reading our post! At Conflictus, we eagerly await your feedback and insights.
Tunç Karaçay
Conflictus Conflict Resolution Training and Consultancy
🔗 Learn more about our services: Conflictus Website: https://www.conflictus.co/en
📧 Contact us: info@conflictus.co
References
Folger, J. P., Poole, M. S., & Stutman, R. K. (2012). Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations. Pearson.
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191.
Galtung, J. (1996). Peace by peaceful means: Peace and conflict, development and civilization. Sage Publications.
Comments