Between people with radically different interests and views, conflicts often arise. Their essence is diverse. But always, regardless of the situation, tension arises between the participants and a clearly perceived negative experienced by them in relation to each other. But we all live and interact in society. The people who are its members are different. And hardly anyone managed to avoid such “clashes”. However, from a psychological point of view, such situations are sometimes even useful. So now it’s worth talking about the pros and cons of conflicts.
Emotional aspect
It should be said first of all. There is nothing pleasant in conflicts, as they are accompanied by negative emotions that have a devastating effect on the participants. Particularly susceptible people, their frequent outbursts can even lead to the onset and development of various diseases that usually affect the central nervous system, cardiovascular and digestive systems, liver, joints, etc. Is it 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 take precedence over emotions - to control them by distance 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 focus on something else, not on emotions. For example, on the account from 1 to 10.
Clash of interests
This is what conflicts mean. The pros and cons in the clash of interests are obvious. The negative side 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 different views on a situation, they begin to cross all possible boundaries. They begin to turn to personalities, throw insults, and humiliate an opponent. This is terrible, unacceptable and shows a person from the worst side.
Why do this when you can benefit from a conflict of interest? The plus here is the ability to expand your personal boundaries, revise views on familiar things, and try to think differently. This approach often even gives impetus to building interpersonal relationships in a new way.
Feud
Speaking about the pros and cons of conflicts, it should be noted that conflicts of interests often lead to hostility. There is nothing good about it.
But at the same time, the conflict is an occasion to sort out the situation calmly, without scandals. Opponents can simply calm down and find out each other's point of view, after listening to the opinion and arguments of the interlocutor without interruption.
This is also not given to everyone, since first you need to get the better of 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, as well as find ways out of it.
Typology
Well, after a brief discussion of the pros and cons of conflicts, I would like to pay a little attention to their classification. A good typology is distinguished in social psychology. Here are some conflicts:
- Intrapersonal.
- Interpersonal.
- Intergroup.
- Between a person and a group.
At the same time, no matter what type of conflict of interest, it can be either constructive or destructive.
In the first case, the parties to the conflict come to a consensus on its solution. Disagreement is eliminated, and relations between people are strengthened.
In the second case, the parties to the conflict do not come to a solution to the problem. Of course, they can forget about what happened conditionally. But if the consequences of the disagreement adversely affect their relations in the future, then the conflict is considered destructive - unresolved.
Kinds
If we take the object of conflict as a criterion, we can distinguish five of the following types:
- Economic. Clashes of economic interests arise on the basis of. The characteristic of the conflict is simple - it arises from the fact that the needs of one side are satisfied by the other.
- Socio-political. Their basis is the contradictions affecting state policy and other aspects of this sphere.
- Ideological. They arise due to contradictions in the views on various problems of the state, society and life.
- Socio-psychological. Here, the characterization of the conflict is simple and understandable, since this type of contradiction occurs most often. They arise due to the psychological incompatibility of people, ideological differences, the struggle for leadership, selfishness, etc.
- Social and domestic. These conflicts are connected with different ideas of people about life and life. The simplest example is disharmony in family relationships. The causes of occurrence can be both domestic troubles and ideological differences.
This is a rather narrow and generalized classification. It is also worth noting that conflicts are also emotional and rational, long and short-term, spiritual and material.
Behavioral strategies
It is also worth briefly telling about them. In total, five conflict behavior strategies are known.
Competition. A person following this strategy intends to satisfy his personal interests to the detriment of strangers. He is sure that only one can win the conflict. Such a person will insist on his own until the last, not even trying to listen to his opponent.
Device. The opposite strategy. It is followed by people who are ready to give up their personal interests, if only the opponent calmed down. Usually they are unsure of themselves, 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 also strangers do not take into account.
Compromise. This strategy involves the partial satisfaction of the interests of each party. One person is inferior to another if he does the same.
Cooperation. The most sensible strategy. It 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.
Following 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 "reach out" to everyone.