Pros and cons of conflicts. Types of conflicts and ways to resolve them

Between people with radically different interests and views, conflicts often arise. Their essence is diverse. But always, regardless of the situation between the participants, there is a tension and a clearly perceived negative, experienced by them in relation to each other. But we all live and interact in society. People who are its members are different. And hardly anyone could avoid such "collisions". However, from a psychological point of view, such situations are sometimes even useful. So now it is worth talking about the cons and pluses of conflicts.

Emotional aspect

About him should be said first. In conflicts, there is nothing pleasant, as they are accompanied by negative emotions, destructively affecting the participants. Especially impressionable people, their frequent splashes can even lead to the development and development of various diseases that usually affect the central nervous system, cardiovascular and digestive systems, liver, joints, etc. Strange? Not at all, because in our body everything is interconnected.

This is a minus. But there is a plus! In such situations, you can learn to overcome emotions - to control them, distancing themselves from the epicenter of the conflict. Not everyone knows how to get away from the "boiling point". But under such circumstances, you can try to develop this skill. A popular way is to concentrate on something else, not on emotions. For example, on an account from 1 to 10.

Conflict of interest

This implies conflicts. Pros and cons in the collision of interests are obvious. The downside is that many people forget about the existence of such a thing as "personal opinion". And, having entered into a discussion with a person who has other views on a situation, they begin to transcend all possible boundaries. Begin to move to the individual, rush insults, humiliate the opponent. It's awful, unacceptable and shows the person from the worst side.

Why do this when you can benefit from a clash of interests? Plus here lies the opportunity to expand your personal boundaries, to reconsider the views on the usual things, to try to think differently. This approach often even gives impetus to building interpersonal relations in a new way.

Enmity

Talking about the pros and cons of conflicts, it should be noted that it is often to hostility that clashes of interests lead. There is nothing good in this.

But at the same time, the conflict is an excuse to sort out the current situation calmly, without scandals. Opponents can simply calm down and find out each other's point of view, having listened to the opinion and arguments of the interlocutor without interrupting.

This, too, is not given to everyone, since you must first get the upper hand over emotions and often over your ego. But it is through a calm conversation that one can understand the causes and essence of the situation that has arisen, and also find ways to get out of it.

Typology

Well, after a brief discussion of the pros and cons of conflicts, I would like to give a little attention to their classification. A good typology is singled out in social psychology. Here are some conflicts:

• Intrapersonal.
• Interpersonal.
• Intergroup.
• Between a person and a group.

At the same time, to whatever kind of clash of interests does not apply, it can be either constructive or destructive.

In the first case, the participants in the conflict come to a consensus on its solution. Disagreement is eliminated, and relations between people are strengthened.

In the second case, the participants in the conflict do not come to the solution of the problem. They can, of course, forget about what happened. But if the consequences of disagreement are adversely reflected in their relations, the conflict is considered destructive - unresolved.

Kinds

If you take the object of conflicts as a criterion, you will get five types:

• Economic. Arise on the basis of a clash of economic interests. The characteristic of the conflict is simple - it arises because the needs of one party are satisfied by the other.
• Socio-political. Their basis is the contradictions affecting the policy of the state and other aspects of this sphere.
• Ideological. They arise because of the contradictions in the views on various problems of the state, society and life.
• Socially-psychological. Here the characterization of the conflict is simple and understandable, since this kind of contradiction is most often encountered. They arise because of the psychological incompatibility of people, ideological differences, the struggle for leadership, selfishness, etc.
• Social and domestic. These conflicts are associated with different perceptions of people about life and life. The simplest example is disharmony in family relations. The causes of the outbreak can be both domestic dislocation and ideological discrepancies.

This is a fairly narrow and generalized classification. It is also worth noting that even conflicts are emotional and rational, long and short-term, spiritual and material.

Behavior Strategies

About them, too, should be briefly told. In total, five strategies of behavior in conflict are known.

Competition. The person following this strategy, intends to satisfy his personal interests at the expense of others. He is sure that only one can defeat the conflict. Such a person will insist on his own until the last, without even trying to listen to an opponent.

Adaptation. The opposite strategy. She is followed by people who are ready to sacrifice personal interests, if only the opponent has calmed down. Usually they are not self-confident, morally weak and have low self-esteem.

Avoidance. Neutral strategy. It is preferred by people who try to avoid conflicts. They do not belittle their interests, but strangers too do not take into account.

Compromise. This strategy implies partial satisfaction of the interests of each party. One person yields to another, if he does the same.

Cooperation. The most reasonable strategy. She is followed by people who want everyone to win. They find out the cause and cause of the conflict, objectively examine it from all sides and find a solution that suits everyone.

Adherence to the latter strategy, of course, is the best way to solve the problem. But not easy. Because before you establish "cooperation" between the parties to the conflict, you need to "get through" to everyone.