• Introduction
• Conflict
• Tactics
• Escalation
• Models
• Conditions
• Persistence
• Other theories

Conditions that encourage and discourage escalation

The likelihood that a conflict will escalate is partly a function of conflict size - the extent of perceived divergence of interest and the rigidity of the parties' aspirations. It is also a function of what can be called "instability." Situations are highly unstable if even a small conflict can launch a massive escalation; they are highly stable if only a very large conflict can have this impact.

Instability (and hence escalation) results if one or both of the parties is prone to overreact to annoyance, or has weak inhibitions against aggressive responding.

Before we can understand which conditions that encourage conflict between groups, we have to take a look at which conditions that encourage overreaction at the individual level. These include:

• Autonomic arousal.
• Being angry because of a prior incident (especially if it has not been possible to identify or punish the source of this incident).
• Belonging to a culture of honour.
• Having supporters or audiences that favour harsh reacting.

People with irritable personalities also tend to overreact. Conditions that erode inhibitions against aggressive responding include exposure to aggressive models and impulsivity. Drinking alcohol and time pressure have both of these effects - encouraging overreaction and reducing inhibitions.

Stability is encouraged if both parties have strong inhibitions against aggressive responding or the situation encourages conflict management. Inhibitions against aggressive responding result from:

• An understanding of the conflict spiral.
• Emphathy toward Other.
• Having bonds (of friendship, kinship, common group membership, etc.).
• The existence of conflict limiting norms.
• Being in the presence of peace-loving third parties.
• Pressure from allies who are negatively affected by the conflict.
• Being a person who needs social approval.

Conflict management is encouraged by:

• Bonds with Other that allow meaningful conversation.
• An understanding of the structural change model.
• The easy availability of conflict limiting in situations such as police, courts, mediators, and the like.

Several of the conditions just listed also produce stability in intergroup relations. These include:

• Bonds and dependencies.
• Pressure from allies.
• The availability of conflict limiting norms and institutions.

In addition, the likelihood of intergroup escalation is reduced by:

• Loyalty to the broader community.
• The existence of crosscutting bonds (friendship and organizational memberships that cut across two groups in conflict.)

Prior escalation is a major source of instability, because the structural changes that are produced by escalation tend to erode many of the safe-guards against future escalation, at both the individual and group levels.

In the absence of constraints and conditions that encourage conflict management, conflicting parties tend to fall back on threats and threat enforcement in an effort to protect themselves. Stability is achieved in such anarchic situations if the circumstances make it unwise or impossible for any party to mount or sustain an attack on any other. In international relations, a balance of military capability or mutual assured destruction may have this impact. However, major problems can easily arise for parties and communities that rely on threat alone.

• Print version of this page