Conflict and Socioemotional De
elopment
Conflict and Socioemotional Development
1. Conflict Defined
Conflict is a broad term, widely invoked in the
common vernacular and in the scientific literature to
suggest a state of disagreement or opposition. The
term carries different connotations depending upon
whether the experiencer is singular or plural. Intra-
personal conflict describes a state of emotional turmoil
or intellectual dissent that occurs within an individual.
Interpersonal conflict describes a social interchange
that is marked by opposing goals and that involves
two or more persons. The earliest English usage of
each term dates to the fifteenth century; both have
common roots in the Latin conflictus, meaning throw
or strike together (Shantz and Hartup 1992). This
shared etiology tends to muddy distinctions between
these two distinct forms of conflict.
1.1 Intrapersonal Conflict
Intrapersonal conflict encompasses two broad
domains. At the emotional level, conflict reflects
competing impulses or desires. Freud (1965) attributed
these tendencies to contradictory aggressive and sexual
proclivities with origins in the id (the unregulated
physical self) and to irreconcilable differences between
these selfish urges and constraints imposed by the
superego (the social mores conveyed by family and
culture). At the cognitive level, conflict reflects dis-
sonance produced by incongruent facts, opinions, or
modes of thought. Piaget (1985) attributed these
tendencies to equilibration, the innate tension between
a preference for stability and a drive to master the
environment. Assimilation encourages stability by
incorporating new information into existing mental
schema. Should this prove insufficient for mastering
the environment, accommodation is required to alter
mental schema in a manner consistent with the
information available.
Intrapersonal conflict is by definition a private
experience. It cannot be observed and it has no reliable
metric. Early scientific psychologists relied on in-
trospection to glean insight into thoughts, a practice
modified and popularized by psychodynamic psycho-
logists to probe unconscious emotional states. Sub-
jective experience as a topic of study fell out of favor
with the behavioral revolution. Reaction times, physi-
ological cues, and projective responses were employed
as proxies for inner conflict, but poor reliability and
the absence of face validity undermined these efforts.
With the cognitive (counter)revolution, new intro-
spective methods gained legitimacy as advances in
measurement and instrumentation were applied to
mental processes. Scholars began to focus on the
diverse experiences of different cultural and ethnic
groups, and in so doing it became apparent that
scientific inquiry into intrapersonal conflict cannot
proceed in the absence of valid and reliable self-report
data.
1.2 Interpersonal Conflict
Interpersonal conflict may take place at the level of the
dyad or the group. Dyadic conflict is a social episode
marked by overt behavioral opposition. The function
of such conflicts and the manner in which they unfold
vary according to characteristics of the participants
and their relationship, the issue and context of the
disagreement, the tactics employed, and their conse-
quences (Deutsch 1973). Group conflict refers to
negative or incompatible attitudes and behaviors
directed by members or representatives of one group
toward those of another group. The nature and
significance of intergroup conflict differs according to
leadership styles and prevailing norms, member co-
hesion, resource availability, and the individual and
collective talents and experiences of each group (Sherif
et al. 1961).
Interpersonal conflict is a quantifiable, ofttimes
public event. It consists of a sequence of easily
recognized and well-defined components including the
initial opposition, and the tactics, resolution, and
outcome. That said, empirical studies of dyadic and
group conflict suffer from inconsistent operational
definitions. The conflict measures employed differ in
terms of whether they assess unilateral or mutual
oppositions, and in terms of whether the frequency of
an event is distinguished from its affective intensity
(Laursen and Collins 1994). Distinct patterns of
interpersonal conflict emerge when considering recip-
rocated as opposed to unreciprocated disagreements
and when angry disputes are examined apart from
the mundane. Early work on interpersonal conflict fo-
cused on groups and dyads in experimenter-contrived
conditions designed to elicit disagreements. Concerns
about the ethical treatment of participants and a lack
of generalizability prompted improvements in eco-
logical validity; unobtrusive observations in natural
settings have been integrated with running assess-
ments of psychophysiological states and moment-by-
moment accounts of participant cognitions and affect
(Gottman 1994). The utility of self-reports increased
once scholars realized that participant reports of
conflict differ not only from one another but also from
observer reports, suggesting that what was once
considered measurement error may in fact represent
important individual differences in how conflict is
perceived and experienced.
2. The Role of Conflict in De
elopment
Conflict is inherent in growth, and human devel-
opment cannot proceed without conflict. Wisdom,
2535
Conflict and Socioemotional De
elopment
emotional maturity, and social skills may be tied to a
series of developmentally defined tasks and the con-
flicts specific to each. Scholars agree that intrapersonal
and interpersonal conflict each shape developmental
trajectories, but there is little consensus as to the exact
mode of transmission. The developmental effects of
conflict appear to be limited to specific domains of
influence circumscribed by individual timetables and
characteristics of the disagreement such as the issue
and participants.
2.1 Intrapersonal Conflict and De
elopment
Intrapersonal conflict is instrumental to the attain-
ment of several important milestones in socio-
emotional development. First, conflict may prompt
changes in internal schema and mental structures.
Accommodation (Piaget 1985) exemplifies this pro-
cess: A child confronted with a difficult moral dilemma
may be forced to disregard views previously held dear
in order to objectively consider different perspectives
and reach a fair solution. Alternatively, conflict may
give rise to changes in perceptions and priorities.
Cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957) typifies this
mechanism: A child forced to select a single partner
for an outing may find that, in so choosing, the esteem
of one friend has been enhanced at the expense of
others. Finally, conflict may alter affect and impulse
control. A child who opts to delay gratification in the
hopes of improved rewards will learn to succeed by
cultivating strategies that minimize emotional arousal
and divert attention from proximate stimuli.
Theory concerning the ontogenetic significance of
intrapersonal conflict has outpaced research on the
topic. There is less research on emotional development
than on cognitive and social–cognitive development,
but the available evidence supports the assertion that
the influence of intrapersonal conflict is defined by the
topic of disagreement and the cognitive or affective
domain invoked. Furthermore, effects are qualified by
individual timetables: Development mediates the in-
fluence of conflict. The likelihood that some devel-
opmental periods are more susceptible to alterations
than others leads to the provocative suggestion that
intrapersonal conflict is neither a necessary nor suffi-
cient condition for development but rather a factor
that may, at certain times, facilitate advances in the
specific emotional or cognitive arena in which it arises
(Shantz and Hartup 1992).
2.2 Interpersonal Conflict and De
elopment
Social skills and social development are entwined with
interpersonal conflict. Disagreements, especially those
in close relationships, are one of the primary means
whereby individuals define themselves and delimit
their interactions with others. Three influence path-
2536
ways merit mention. First, conflict may prompt
changes in self-understanding and self-evaluation.
Critical disagreements force participants to re-
evaluate goals and tactics, offering opportunities to
hone social perspective taking and interpersonal ne-
gotiation skills (Selman 1980). Second, conflict helps
to determine patterns of social interaction in close re-
lationships that may impact developmental outcomes.
Coercive exchanges tend to be self-perpetuating and,
once started, they interfere with the dividends that
normally accrue from positive affiliations (Patterson
1982). Third, conflict may define and alter expectations
about individuals and relationships. In some cases,
roles and responsibilities are negotiated directly, but in
other cases, behavior is evaluated for cues as to
whether current expectations are consistent with the
demands of the situation and the maturity of the
participants (Hinde 1997).
There is considerable support for the premise
that the developmental significance of conflict depends
on the relationship in which it arises (Laursen
and Collins 1994). Three relationship properties are
germane: closeness, permanence, and power. Dis-
agreements in close relationships have the potential to
alter developmental trajectories profoundly; few dis-
agreements in other relationships have such effects.
Disagreements in voluntary relationships are more apt
to bring about individual change than those in
obligatory relationships; participants in the former
must behave in a manner that affords mutually
satisfactory outcomes if the affiliation is to continue,
whereas participants in the latter worry little about the
dangers of relationship dissolution. Disagreements in
horizontal or mutual relationships provide especially
fertile ground for improved social skills because when
power is shared, negotiation is necessary for an
amicable resolution; in vertical or unilateral re-
lationships, resolutions are more often the product
of power differentials than of negotiation abilities.
Thesevariationsnotwithstanding,developmentalshifts
in conflict man agement may be identified such
that the practice of coercion is gradually replaced
across childhood and adolescence by negotiation and
withdrawal.
3. Conclusion: the Paradoxical Influence of
Conflict
Conflict is often unpleasant and aversive. Given the
option, most people would choose to avoid it. For this
reason, it is commonly assumed that conflict hinders
development. This assumption has been challenged on
the grounds that linear models overlook the beneficent
role that conflict plays in maturation. A curvilinear
model of influence captures this alternative perspec-
tive: moderate conflict provides experience necessary
for optimal socioemotional development, whereas too
little conflict limits the potential for growth and too

much conflict overwhelms mechanisms for coping
with it.
3.1 Future Directions
Most research on the significance of interpersonal
conflict has focused on its potential for adverse
consequences. Few studies have addressed the possi-
bility that conflict promotes socioemotional devel-
opment. Strong evidence supports the assertion that
children who experience high rates of angry conflict
suffer from low self-esteem, poor social skills, inter-
personal rejection, and adjustment problems. Yet the
nature of this research is such that it is impossible to
determine whether maladaptation is the cause or the
consequence of interpersonal conflict. Neither can it
be determined whether there are sensitive periods
during which conflict exerts a particularly strong
influence on development, although a few studies
suggest that conflict mediates difficult transitions
through precocious puberty, marital reconfiguration,
and school entry. Of particular importance to this field
of inquiry is research that makes a full and nuanced
account of the dynamic interplay between conflict and
developmental outcomes. Studies of change over time
are needed to specify the paradoxical influence of
conflict on concurrent individual adjustment and on
long-term developmental trajectories.
See also: Adulthood: Emotional Development; Con-
flict\Consensus; Infancy and Childhood: Emotional
Development; Social Learning, Cognition, and
Personality Development
Bibliography
Deutsch M 1973 The Resolution of Conflict: Constructi
e and
Destructi
e Processes. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT
Festinger L 1957 A Theory of Cogniti
e Dissonance. Stanford
University Press, Stanford, CA
Freud S 1965 The Problem of Anxiety. Norton, New York
(Original work published 1936)
Gottman J M 1994 What Predicts Di
orce? The Relationship
Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ
Hinde R A 1997 Relationships: a Dialectical Perspecti
e. Psycho-
logy Press, Hove, UK
Laursen B, Collins W A 1994 Interpersonal conflict during
adolescence. Psychological Bulletin 115: 197–209
Patterson G R 1982 Coerci
e Family Process. Castalia, Eugene,
OR
Piaget J 1985 The Equilibration of Cogniti
e Structures. Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, Chicago (Original work published
1975)
Selman R 1980 The Growth of Interpersonal Understanding:
De
elopmental and Clinical Analyses. Academic Press, New
York
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences
Conflict and War, Archaeology of
Shantz C U, Hartup W W 1992 Conflict in Child and Adolescent
De
elopment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Sherif M, Harvey O J, White F J, Hood W R, Sherif C W 1961
Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: the Robbers’ Ca
e
Experiment. University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
B. Laursen
Copyright # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.
Conflict and War, Archaeology of
Archaeology is the study of patterns of effects;
repetitions of human behavior that leave an enduring
mark on the physical world. War, the armed conflict
between social units, is such a pattern and leaves very
enduring effects. Such effects include the remains of
victims of homicide and warfare, fortifications,
specialized weapons, destroyed settlements, and de-
pictions of combat. Ancient violent conflicts also
had important consequences, correlates, and causes
involving human ecology, the distribution of settle-
ments, production and exchange, social organization,
ideology, and symbolism.
The definitions of ‘war’ used by social scientists and
historians can be grouped into two extreme categories:
broad and narrow. Broad definitions, like that used in
the introductory paragraph, classify violent and lethal
conflicts between all social or political units as war.
Broad definitions allow the survey and analysis of the
widest range of deadly conflicts between human
groups. They permit anthropologists studying pre-
historic and recent small-scale societies to contribute
to scholarly and popular debates about warfare.
Narrow definitions restrict the term ‘war’ just to
societies organized as states. States being political
organizations that are hierarchically organized,
centrally directed, class-stratified with a high degree of
occupational specialization (especially, full-time mili-
tary specialists) and which maintain a monopoly of
deadly force. Narrow definitions restrict analysis of
warfare only to societies roughly similar in scale and
complexity to modern nations. They excuse ignorance
about violent conflicts between nonstate societies.
Broad definitions imply that warfare is a human
universal while narrow definitions claim that collective
violence is a scourge peculiar to states.
Until the development of scientific dating methods
around 1950, the primary concern of archaeologists
was establishing sequences of cultural changes for
their respective regions. Their interpretations of social
phenomenon, such as warfare, when they made any at
all, tended to be off-hand with little basis in analysis or
argument. Their attitudes toward prehistoric warfare
were also affected by the Social Darwinist attitudes
that characterized the heyday of Western Imperialism.
Many kinds of implements and constructions were
2537
ISBN: 0-08-043076-7