The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution Through the Lens of Social Psychology: Cooperation and Competition
- Tunç Karaçay
- Jun 3
- 5 min read
As we begin this article, it is important to remind ourselves that conflict resolution is, by its very nature, an interdisciplinary field. Conflicts are complex, multilayered, and deeply human phenomena that cannot be fully understood within the boundaries of a single discipline. For this reason, the field of conflict resolution has, from the outset, drawn upon the accumulated knowledge of various disciplines, including political science, psychology, sociology, and communication studies. Each of these disciplines not only allows us to perceive a different facet of conflict but also opens new doors to potential solutions.
That is precisely why, as practitioners in the field of conflict resolution, we place great value on bringing together these diverse perspectives and learning from interdisciplinary intersections. In our trainings and consulting processes, we strive to reflect this diversity and often incorporate examples inspired by social psychology to help participants grasp different viewpoints and better understand behaviors within groups. In previous writings, we have explored classical social psychology experiments such as the Bobo Doll experiment, the Robbers Cave experiment, and the Broken Windows Theory by relating them to conflict resolution dynamics.
In this article, we focus on how competition and cooperation — two fundamental forces — significantly shape conflicts. To do so, we draw on key contributions from renowned social psychologists whose work has enriched our understanding of conflict resolution.
Competition and Cooperation: Two Essential Elements of Conflict Resolution
Numerous dynamics influence the emergence, stage, and type of conflicts. Factors such as the sources fueling the conflict, the individual traits of the parties involved, and the nature of their relationship all shape the process and its potential consequences. However, another set of crucial dynamics lies within the context in which the conflict occurs. The characteristics of the conflict environment, along with the parties’ perceptions and attitudes toward it, are also pivotal in shaping the trajectory of the conflict.
As discussed in our earlier articles, the conflict handling styles model developed by Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph Kilmann in the 1970s offers a valuable framework for understanding individuals’ approaches to conflict. Two of the five styles outlined in this model are defined directly along the axes of cooperativeness and competitiveness. While these styles may appear to be personal choices, various factors significantly influence the extent to which parties adopt and apply them.
Competition and cooperation, therefore, are not just personal traits or strategies; they are fundamental dynamics that frame the conflict environment itself. Both concepts have been explored in depth by various disciplines, and in this article, we aim to examine them from a social psychological perspective.
Insights from Social Psychology
It is fitting to begin with Muzafer Sherif, a pioneer in social psychology. In his groundbreaking Robbers Cave Experiment, Sherif artificially induced competition between two groups of boys, revealing how quickly rivalry can escalate into hostility and discrimination. Yet the most striking part of the experiment was how this competitive environment could be overcome — only by introducing superordinate goals, shared objectives that required mutual cooperation to achieve. Sherif’s findings demonstrate that conflict is not an inevitable outcome of human nature, but a product of context — one that can be transformed. In other words, shifting the structure and goals of the environment can turn adversaries into collaborators.
Building on Sherif’s findings, Henri Tajfel and John Turner introduced a new dimension to conflict studies in social psychology. They argued that conflict is not always rooted in material or tangible interests but is also fueled by social identity, group belonging, and psychological processes. In their Minimal Group Paradigm experiments, they showed that even arbitrary and meaningless group distinctions can lead individuals to favor their in-group while discriminating against the out-group. This occurred even when there was no actual conflict of interest — only the presence of a “we” vs. “them” division.
The Social Identity Theory, developed from these findings, posits that individuals strive to enhance their self-esteem by associating with positively evaluated groups. This often results in the denigration of other groups, exclusion, and negative stereotyping. At this point, the conflict-generating power of perceived competition becomes evident. Even without material resources at stake, identity-based rivalries can escalate intergroup tensions. Cooperation, therefore, is hindered not only by structural barriers but also by psychological dynamics.
Bringing together social psychology and conflict resolution, Morton Deutsch provided new conceptualizations by examining interpersonal dynamics in conflict environments. His research revealed how cooperative and competitive climates create vastly different psychological conditions. Cooperation fosters mutual interdependence and shared benefits, while competition increases mistrust, misunderstanding, and zero-sum thinking. Known for his distinction between constructive and destructive conflict, Deutsch emphasized that the nature of interaction — not just the conflict itself — determines its outcomes. Whether a conflict turns constructive or destructive largely depends on how competition and cooperation are embedded in the process.
Finally, it is essential to mention Peter T. Coleman, whose work focuses on protracted and seemingly intractable conflicts. According to Coleman, in long-term conflicts, competition and cooperation are not simply momentary behaviors; they become recurrent systemic patterns embedded in the conflict structure. Competitive dynamics — especially when reinforced by mutual distrust — create self-sustaining loops. Coleman argues that breaking these loops requires strategic, small-scale cooperative interventions. For him, cooperation is not merely a virtue or a goal — it is a transformative intervention strategy in complex systems.
These diverse social psychological perspectives illustrate that competition and cooperation are not only shaping forces in conflict but also the foundational elements of the relationships involved. So, how should we approach conflict in light of this knowledge?
First, we must acknowledge that addressing conflict requires more than analyzing the attitudes of the parties involved. We also need to consider the context — the environment in which the conflict unfolds. Competition and cooperation are not merely the product of deliberate strategy but are structural elements shaping the terrain where conflict grows. To deeply understand a conflict and develop effective solutions, we cannot ignore these dynamics. On the contrary, recognizing and engaging with them becomes a critical step toward resolution.
In sum, we can say that both actual and perceived competition have significant effects on how conflict is shaped. At the same time, cooperation plays a vital role in mitigating and transforming conflict. Understanding how these dynamics function — both structurally and psychologically — offers valuable insights for building more effective and sustainable conflict resolution strategies.
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:
Coleman, P. T. (2014). Intractable conflict. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (3rd ed., pp. 697–721).
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. Yale University Press.
Sherif, M. (1956). Experiments in group conflict. Scientific American, 195(5), 54–58.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 33(5), 47–60.
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. XICOM.
Comments