Interpersonal Conflict: What it is and How to Overcome it

Interpersonal conflict can be defined as any conflict between two or more people. This can be a simple disagreement, an explosive argument, or, at its worst, interpersonal violence.

A great example of interpersonal conflict can be found in the story of Moloch in the Bible.

A how-not to guide: Moloch in the Bible

Let’s look at how not to resolve interpersonal conflict. Fables of the pagan god Moloch from the Bible’s Old Testament, as well as a number of other ancient texts, gives us a great example of interpersonal conflict resolution gone awry. Moloch was renowned for his unique style of conflict resolution . . . which made life worse for everyone but him.

Among other supernatural abilities, Moloch had the power to give warriors a great advantage in battle. In return for Moloch’s help, there was one little catch: the warriors had to sacrifice a child to him.

Despite this rather considerable catch, many warriors did, according to legend, make this deal with Moloch. Believing that if they lost the battle, their families would likely be killed by their opponents anyway, they figured it would be better to lose a child and win the war, than risk losing the lives of the their entire families and possibly their culture as a whole. As bad as the deal was, the warriors thought it better to make this terrible sacrifice and win the war, than not to make the sacrifice and lose.

The Biblical story of Moloch is an exemplary tale of interpersonal conflict gone wrong.
Moloch’s interpersonal conflict resolution methods leave something to be desired

But there was a problem: Moloch extended the offer to warriors on all sides. When both sides sacrificed their children to Moloch to gain the same advantage, the advantages on both sides were nullified, and the battle was fought just the same as if no one had made the deal.

The warriors’ deals with Moloch did nothing but make a bad situation worse for everyone involved. . . except Moloch, of course.

The Moloch dilemma: An interpersonal conflict resolution strategy gone wrong

The ‘Moloch dilemma’ is a key to understanding a key aspect of interpersonal conflict. In short, the Moloch dilemma occurs under the following circumstances: A course of action gives one person a relative advantage compared to others, but that same course of action is also available to others, and when all parties take this course of action, the outcome is worse for everyone than if no one had taken it.

Let’s take a look at how the Moloch dilemma turns up in everyday examples of interpersonal conflict.

Examples of Interpersonal Conflict

Example 1: A passive aggressive interpersonal conflict

I’ll start with a lighter scenario:

Rachel stumbles out of her bedroom in the morning and makes way to the fridge. When she opens the fridge, she finds that her roommate drank all your milk…again. She has tried to handle this the responsible way in the past, by discussing it with roommate, but it clearly hasn’t work. So she tries a new strategy — she throws away her roommate’s eggs to spite her.

The next morning, Rachel opens the fridge and find that her roommate has thrown also thrown out Rachel’s eggs in retaliation.

So, what went wrong?

Rachel recognized and took a strategic advantage: she threw away her roommate’s food to show her roommate her disapproval of her action. While Rachel figured this would lead to a positive change by illustrating how her roommate’s actions negatively impacted her, it instead backfired on her.

The reason it backfired is because her roommate recognized and took the same strategic advantage — throwing away something of hers. Now, they are both worse off (they each have less food and are angry with each other) than when the conflict began. In other words, they both made a deal with Moloch, and Moloch won.

Example 2: Someone resorts to interpersonal violence

Now, a more serious example:

Emma has a disagreement with his partner over a financial issue. After a few minutes, there is still no obvious solution to satisfy both parties — they’re at a stalemate. So Emma yells at her partner — a strategic decision made to gain an advantage by asserting dominance. This is intended to provoke submission from her partner, thereby ending the disagreement and restoring peace.

But this advantage is available to his partner as well, and he takes it, too. Now, both Emma and her partner both are yelling at each other. Emma’s “advantage” has been nullified, and, still, no progress has been made.

Emma recognizes that her advantage has been lost, and again escalates the situation by taking a glass from a nearby table and throwing it to the ground. This, too, is intended to provide a strategic advantage by displaying dominance in the attempt to elicit submission from her partner.

But this advantage, too, is available to her partner, and he takes it. He picks up another glass and smashes it against the wall. Now the argument has turned into a violent dispute, and, again, no progress has been made on the underlying issue.

You can see how this cycle can go on . . .

When the fight finally ends — whether it sputters out or through personal injury, police intervention, or worse, neither party ends up better off than if they had avoided the escalation altogether. When this happens, Moloch is the only winner.

The Moloch dilemma thrives on a cognitive bias

Moloch stays in business because he exploits a natural cognitive bias: a failure to consider that if we can identify and are willing to take an advantage, then others likely can and will take the same advantage.

I often hear examples of this in my practice. Someone has acted aggressively, perhaps even engaging in interpersonal violence, thinking it would resolve a conflict. Then, this person is surprised when the target of his or her aggression responds with aggression or violence in return.

Really, it should be surprising when this pattern doesn’t happen. According to Interpersonal Theory, hostility draws hostility. If you or I act with hostility towards someone, the most likely outcome is that that person will respond to us with hostility in return. Then, we are likely to respond with more hostility of our own. This is a classic negative feedback loop.

Once the negative feedback loop has been initiated, it really doesn’t matter who started it, because all members in the conflict are predisposed to continue the negative feedback loop until someone — anyone — makes the conscious decision to break the cycle.

A guide to overcoming interpersonal conflict

There are numerous evidence-based strategies for resolving conflict in a healthy manner; I am going to offer a model developed by psychologist Marshall Rosenberg called Nonviolent Communication. Rosenberg was a mediator and communications expert for civil rights activists in the 1960s, and was awarded diplomat status in clinical psychology from the American Board of Examiners in Professional Psychology. His model is simple, and well-tested.

Nonviolent Communication involves four steps: observe and reflect; describe your emotions; state your needs; and make a request. At Virginia Counseling, we use the acronym R.E.S.T. as an aid to remembering these steps.

1. Observe and Reflect (R)

The first step is to identify the interpersonal conflict. What has happened, from your view, to initiate the conflict?

Example: What I see is that you drank my milk without asking me first.

Key to remembering: R is for Reflect.

2. Describe your Emotions (E)

Next, describe how the interpersonal conflict has made you feel. Avoid making judgments (“you’re wrong”), and instead focus on the emotional impact of the conflict.

Example: This made me angry, because it feels like you don’t respect my boundaries.

Key to remembering: E is for Emotions.

3. State your needs (S)

Now that you’ve defined the problem and identified how it has emotionally impacted you, describe what you need for the interpersonal conflict to be resolved.

Example: I need to feel like my boundaries are being respected.

Key to remembering: S is for State.

4. Make a treaty request (T)

Finally, request that your opponent takes a specific action to resolve the interpersonal conflict in the present and the future.

Example: Would you be willing to respect my boundaries by asking permission before using my belongings?

Key to remembering: T is for Treaty.

In total, your statement would look something like this:

(R) What I see is that you drank my milk without asking me first.

(E) This made me angry because I felt like you didn’t care about my boundaries.

(S) I need to feel like my boundaries are being respected.

(T) Would you be willing to respect my boundaries by asking permission before using my belongings?

After you make your request, it is up to the person you are in conflict with to accept or reject your request.  If he or she rejects it, you can repeat the same steps using R.E.S.T. to identify a resolution to this new conflict: that he or she is refusing to help to resolve the preceding conflict.

Conclusion

There is no magic wand we can waive to cause others to treat us how we’d like to be treated. However, by remembering and following the above steps to resolve interpersonal conflict, we will give ourselves a much better chance of achieving healthy and fulfilling relationships.


References:

  • Alden, L. E, Wiggins, J, & Pincus, A. (1990). Construction of circumplex scales for the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 521-536.
  • Alexander, Scott (2014). Meditations on Moloch. Slate Star Codex.
  • Rosenberg, Marshall (2015). Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life 3rd Ed. Puddle Dancer Press.

Photo credits:

  • All photographs licensed under Creative Commons zero.

Learn more

Subscribe to the monthly newsletter to receive summaries of new articles.

Articles

The Importance of a Support System

How to Break Bad Habits with Classical Conditioning

Radical Acceptance: The Age-Old Challenge to Accept Truth

Similar Posts