Section 2.2. Types of a conflict

There are numerous classifications of conflicts. Their division may be grounded on the source of a conflict, its content, value, the type of solving, its formalization, and the type of the relationship structure, its social formalization, its socio-psychological effect or its social result. According to their direction they may be divided into horizontal, vertical and mixed.

Horizontal contain the conflicts which don’t involve the people who are subordinate to each other.

Vertical conflicts are those which happen between people subordinate to each other.

Mixed conflicts comprise the elements of both vertical and horizontal types.

According to their value for a group or an organization conflicts may be divided into constructive (positive, creative) and destructive (negative, damaging). The first make benefit, the latter – harm. One cannot avoid the first, but one need to avoid the latter.

According to the cause, conflicts may be divided into objective and subjective, being caused by objective or subjective (personal) factors respectively. An objective conflict usually can be solved constructively, while a subjective one is generally solved destructively.

M. Deutsch classifies conflicts according to the criterion of true-false or reality:

- A real conflict exists objectively and is accepted adequately

- Incidental or conditional conflict can be easily changed depending on the circumstances; however, it’s not recognized by the parties;

- An offset conflict is a clear one, which conceals another, unseen conflict, which lies in the basis of the obvious one;

- An incorrectly attributed conflict happens between the parties, who wrongly understood each other, and as a result, it is about misinterpreted problems;

- Latent conflict would have happened, but it didn’t because of one reason or another and it is not realized by the parties;

- False conflict exists only because of errors of perception and understanding with the absence of objective justification.

Classification of conflicts according to the type of social formalization is the following: formal and informal. These conflicts tend to be associated with the organizational structure, its features and can be «horizontal» as well as «vertical» In terms of social and psychological effects conflicts can be divided into two groups:

• developing, approving, activating each of the conflicting parties and the group as a whole;

• contributing to self-assertion or development of one of the conflicting parties or the group as a whole, and to the suppression, control of another person or group of persons.

In terms of social interaction conflicts are classified into ethnic, intergroup, intragroup, interpersonal and intrapersonal. [Deutsch m, 2005, 54]

Ethnic conflict is a conflict between the representatives of ethnic communities, usually living in close proximity in some state. Since the «nationality» in the Russian language usually means the same as «ethnicity», it is sometimes called inter-ethnic conflict. It’s the situation in which each party tries to take a position incompatible and contrary to the interests of the other party, in which one way or another ethnic identity of the parties manifests itself. Thus, the ethnic conflict is a special form of social or political conflict, which has some features:

• the conflicting parties have the division according to the ethnicity;

• the parties look for support from ethnically relative or friendly surroundings;

• in certain ethnic conflicts the ethnic factor has a tendency to politicizing;

• new members identify themselves with one of the parties to the conflict on the basis of common ethnic identity, even if the party’s position is not close to them;

• ethnic conflicts often are not valuable and happen around certain objects and interests of groups. [Deutsch, M., 2005, 54]

Intergroup conflict suggests that the parties to the conflict are social groups pursuing conflicting objectives and affecting each other by their practical actions. This may be a conflict between members of different social categories (e.g., in the organization: workers and engineers, line and office staff, the union and the administration, etc.). It has been shown in socio-psychological studies that «one’s own» group in any situation looks better than «the other». This is a so-called phenomenon of in-group favoritism, which is expressed in the fact that members of the group favor their group one way or another. This is a source of inter-group tensions and conflicts. The main conclusion which social psychologists make from these patterns is the following: if we want to remove inter-group conflict, it is necessary to reduce the differences between the groups (e.g., lack of benefits, fair wages, etc.).

Intragroup conflict includes, as a rule, self-regulation mechanisms. If the group self-regulation fails, and the conflict develops slowly, the conflict in the group becomes the norm. If the conflict is developing rapidly and there is no self-regulation, then comes the destruction. If a conflict situation develops according to the destructive type, a number of dysfunctional consequences is possible. This may be a general dissatisfaction, poor state of mind, reducing cooperation, a strong commitment to the group with a large unproductive competition with other groups. Quite often, the perception of the other side as «the enemy» takes place, with considering one’s point of view as positive, and the objectives of the other side as negative, decreasing the interaction and communication between the parties; more value is attached to the «victory» in the conflict than solving real problems. The group is more resistant to the conflict, if it is cooperatively linked. The consequence of this cooperation is the freedom and openness of communication, mutual support, friendship and trust towards other side. Therefore, the likelihood of intergroup conflict is higher in diffuse, immature, hardly united groups.

Intrapersonal conflict is usually a conflict of motivation, feelings, needs, interests and behavior in one and the same person.

Interpersonal conflict - is the most frequently occurring conflict. The emergence of interpersonal conflict is determined by the situation, the personal characteristics of people, the attitude of the individual to the situation and the psychological characteristics of interpersonal relations. The emergence and development of interpersonal conflict is largely due to demographic and individual psychological characteristics. Women are more characteristic of conflicts related to personal problems, men – of conflicts related to their professional activities.

Each person has his own map of the world, so the collision in it is inevitable. The two can look at one and the same event, hear the same words, but give them a completely different meaning. Due to these models and meanings we have a variety of human moral values, political orientations, religions and interests. The most important components of our maps of reality are beliefs and values ​​that build our lives and make it meaningful. They control what we do and may drag us into a conflict with other people. The value system of a person determines what is important to us, and the conflict arises when we insist that what is important for us must be important for others. Very often such misunderstandings (as a conflict with other people or a conflict with oneself) are classified as noncongruent conflicts.

In psychology a congruence is the consistency of information simultaneously transmitted by a human being in a verbal and nonverbal way (or by different non-verbal means), as well as the consistency of his speech, views, opinions, and in a broader sense it’s the integrity, the very consistency of personality in general. In regard to self-conception, it is a measure of self-compliance of real I to ideal I, constructed in the process of self-esteem. Congruence or its lack in one’s own behavior is not always understood by the individual, but it is almost always felt in the behavior of others (consciously or not). The term of congruence was first introduced by Carl Rogers.

Examples of an incongruent behavior are flattery, lies, and a situation when someone with a sad face says that he's having fun, etc.

According to Carl Rogers, congruence is a coincidence between the «real self» and «ideal self». The first is understood here as the part of the personality, which realizes oneself, following organismic assessment processes, etc. This is the person you become if all goes «well». The second is referred to as a person desired in terms of social and living conditions, ideal as certain standard, which we can never achieve, and achieving this standard is undesirable from the standpoint of the «real me». One can also select «tactical congruence», which means the instant ability to recognize one’s own inner experiences and coordinate their behavior with them. [Rogers, 1995]