Stress
Managing Conflict in a Polarized World
The art and science of de-escalation.
Posted April 1, 2025 Reviewed by Tyler Woods
Key points
- Polarization tends to heighten interpersonal disagreements and conflict.
- Our bodies experience conflict as a potential threat, leading to fight-or-flight physiological reactions.
- We can counteract these reactions by employing proven de-escalation strategies that serve to lower the volume.
Although disagreement is a natural component of human interaction, polarization significantly increases the risk for interpersonal conflict, hostility, and in some cases, violence (Esteban & Schneider, 2008; Smith et al., 2024). I've recently seen this dynamic play out several times this year in a large women's group I belong to, in one instance resulting in the police being called for something that normally would have just been worked out amongst themselves. In the majority of instances, their actions were described as "uncharacteristic" by those who know them well, which begs the question, why? The answer lies in an understanding of the psychology behind polarization and its role in conflict escalation.
What Is Polarization?
Polarization is a complex psychological phenomenon that can have individual, social, and political underpinnings. From a political perspective, polarization is when a society divides into opposing groups based on identification with a specific party or belief (e.g., Democrat versus Republican; climate change believer versus climate change denier). Group polarization is when individuals with shared views form into groups in support of a unified belief or cause. Polarization tends to start with some form of discontent, then becomes fueled by group dynamics (often heightened by social media), which can sometimes lead to extreme positions and a rise in conflict and hostility. However, polarization does not always lead to negative behaviors or outcomes. If harnessed properly, it can serve as a basis for positive change (e.g., Civil Rights and Women's Rights Movements) (Smith, et al., 2024).
The Relationship Between Polarization and Escalation
Polarization and escalation feed off of each other. Polarized views increase the risk of escalation, and escalation fuels polarization. As "sides" start to form, it becomes increasingly harder, due to group dynamics, for individuals in a group to maintain neutral or moderate positions. For instance, it is much more difficult to maintain neutrality or composure when someone or something you value is seemingly being devalued, disrespected, mistreated, or attacked by an opposing side. And each time a new "episode" happens, it leads to an erosion of trust that the "right" thing will happen next time, resulting in an intensification of one's belief that more action or reaction is needed to right the wrong. This is how conflicts escalate and lead to a downward spiral of groupthink mindsets, distorted perceptions, heightened emotions, and uncharacteristic behaviors (Burgess, 2021).
The Psychology Behind De-escalation
Because escalation is psychologically and emotionally driven, there are many strategies that can be employed to "lower the volume" in an escalating conflict. These strategies work by addressing and managing the physiological and psychological responses that occur during conflict. The keys are to:
- recognize and understand these normal responses,
- learn techniques that can effectively override these responses, and
- employ them at critical moments in a conflict situation.
The first step is understanding what happens to our bodies when we encounter conflict. Conflict is physiologically and psychologically experienced as a high-stress situation; and when faced with stress, our bodies go into fight-or-flight mode. This leads to the release of hormones, including adrenaline and cortisol, to prepare our bodies to either face the perceived threat or flee from it (James, et al., 2023). While this primal response can be life-saving in dangerous situations, it's often counter-productive in modern-day conflicts, leading to heightened emotions, clouded judgment, inflammatory communication, and poor choices that don't represent your best self—all of which serve to escalate rather than de-escalate a conflict.
Fortunately, there are many effective de-escalation strategies you can use to moderate your physiological and psychological responses and actions/reactions.
- First and foremost, breathe. Deep breathing lowers your heart rate and reduces the release of stress hormones (Perciavalle, et. al., 2017), which can help clear your mind and improve decision-making.
- Relax your body. Be aware of and take control of the muscle tension throughout your body, particularly in your shoulders, face, arms, and hands. Physical self-awareness is the first step in reducing body tension.
- Speak through your body. Calm body language and a relaxed posture (as opposed to aggressive body language and tense posture) can influence how others perceive and engage with you. Avoid crossing your arms, glaring or intense eye contact, and close physical proximity, all of which can be perceived as threatening.
- Words speak volumes. Respectful and polite language serves to de-escalate conflict; disrespectful, accusatory, or aggressive language serves to escalate it. When in a tense situation, choose your words carefully and intentionally.
- Use "I" statements. “I” statements are perceived as much less accusatory than "you" statements (e.g., “I felt ..." versus "You did ...") (Rogers, et. al., 2018).
- Control your volume. Communicating in a calm voice at a normal volume is respectful and de-escalatory. The louder your voice, the greater the conflict is likely to get.
- Actively listening and show empathy. Attend to what the other person is saying, try to understand their perspective, and acknowledge their feelings, even if you don’t agree with them. This signals respect and can help diffuse anger (e.g., “I understand that you’re frustrated, and it seems unfair to you. Let’s discuss it calmly”). (Klimecki, 2019).
- Reward and encourage de-escalatory behavior from the other side. If the other side seems to be responding to your attempts to "lower the volume," reinforce this by acknowledging it or thanking them.
- Take a time-out. If after trying these strategies, you or the other side aren't able to reduce the friction, step away from the interaction to allow emotions to settle and help you regain perspective.
- Emotional Contagion. In a charged atmosphere, emotions can be contagious, which can quickly escalate a conflict. When this happens, calm cool heads can turn this around, so be cognizant of how the presence, comments, and actions of others are affecting the tension between individuals, and take proactive steps to interrupt the contagion.
While polarization heightens the risk for interpersonal conflict, you don't have to take the bait. Employing some or all of these strategies can lower the volume in most circumstances and keep the situation from escalating.
References
Burgess, H. (2021). Reversing Polarization and Escalation - Part 1. Moving beyond intractability. Reversing Polarization and Escalation - Part 1 | Beyond Intractability
Esteban, J., & Schneider, G. (2008). Polarization and Conflict: Theoretical and Empirical Issues: Introduction. Journal of Peace Research, 45(2), 131–141. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27640646
James, K. A., Stromin, J. I., Steenkamp, N., & Combrinck, M. I. (2023). Understanding the relationships between physiological and psychosocial stress, cortisol and cognition. Frontiers in endocrinology, 14, 1085950. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2023.1085950
Klimecki, O. M. (2019). The Role of Empathy and Compassion in Conflict Resolution. Emotion Review, 11(4), 310-325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073919838609
Perciavalle, V., Blandini, M., Fecarotta, P. et al. (2017). The role of deep breathing on stress. Neurological sciences, 38, 451–458 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-016-2790-8
Rogers, S.L., Howieson, J., & Neame, C. (2018). I understand you feel that way, but I feel this way: the benefits of I-language and communicating perspective during conflict. Peer Journal 6:e 4831. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4831
Smith, L. G. E., Thomas, E. F., Bliuc, A. M., & McGarty, C. (2024). Polarization is the psychological foundation of collective engagement. Communications psychology, 2(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00089-2
