This paper examines the process view of conflict as presented by Abigail and Cahn, which frames conflict as a dynamic series of stages rather than a static, unresolvable state. The paper outlines the five stages of conflict—prelude, trigger, initiation, differentiation, and resolution—and explains why getting "stuck" in any one stage prevents productive outcomes. It also discusses how conflict avoidance, undesired repetitive thinking patterns, and poor conflict styles contribute to destructive outcomes. The paper concludes by applying these theoretical concepts to a personal experience involving political disagreements at family gatherings, demonstrating how a stage-by-stage approach can lead to more effective interpersonal resolution.
This study guide is drawn from PaperDue's library of 130,000+ paper examples across 47 subjects.
The paper consistently uses in-text citations with page numbers (Abigail & Cahn 2011: 21–22) to support each claim, demonstrating disciplined use of a single source across multiple arguments. This technique shows students how to engage deeply with one text rather than relying on a wide but shallow reading list.
The paper opens with an explanation of the process view and its five conflict stages, then pivots to the consequences of getting stuck in those stages. A third section addresses thinking loops and actionable resolution steps. The final section applies all prior theory to a specific personal scenario, functioning as both conclusion and demonstration of learning. This four-part arc moves cleanly from concept to consequence to strategy to application.
The process view of conflict sees conflict as taking place in a series of stages, rather than viewing conflict as a vague, diffuse state that simply "boils over" — as it sometimes feels when one is embroiled in a conflict-ridden situation. A key component of the process view of conflict is seeing situations and people as dynamic. Rather than calling someone a "bad person" or seeing a relationship as "failed," the process view stresses that there is no intrinsic, permanent quality to a conflict. Prelude, trigger, initiation, differentiation, and resolution are the recognized conflict stages (Abigail & Cahn 2011: 21–22).
Conflict is not a permanent state of affairs. A heated conflict may simply be in the differentiation stage, where the participants' perspectives are polarized. The goal is to bring the conflict to a "win-win" resolution. The differentiation stage is not necessarily bad, given that it brings to the forefront the issues that have been simmering in the background during the earlier stages (Abigail & Cahn 2011: 25). Greater self-awareness of one's innate conflict style — passive-aggressive, aggressive, or assertive — is also helpful in achieving a more effective method of dispute resolution that does not chill or inflame conflict (Abigail & Cahn 2011: 45).
Conflict is only destructive when both parties get "stuck" in one of the stages. In other words, it is just as harmful to be stuck in the initiation phase, when nothing is aired, as it is to be mired in the harshest phase of the conflict — the differentiation phase. Conflict avoidance, or fear of conflict, can itself become a cycle of thinking: a cycle in which conflict is seen as bad; conflict is demonized; conflict is avoided; conflict gets out of control; and then conflict is handled poorly (Abigail & Cahn 2011: 28). The "chilling" effect of conflict avoidance can stifle some forms of conflict, but it also smothers all hopes of an effective resolution (Abigail & Cahn 2011: 30).
You’re 49% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.