Using Behavioral Psychology for Effective Conflict Resolution

In our ongoing exploration of the wide world of conflict, we’ve written about insights from some of the many disciplines that impact the work of professionals in the field, and we’ve shared conflict resolution strategies for maximizing focus on what truly matters in conflict management in psychology. Building on these foundations, this blog shifts the conversation to provide a somewhat deeper understanding of how behavioral psychology techniques shape our responses to conflict.

While economic models often assume people make rational decisions, the reality is that human behavior is frequently shaped by biases and cognitive patterns that deviate from these ideals. In this post, we explore three key psychological principles that impact conflict in psychology: loss aversion, the availability heuristic, and the anchoring bias. Understanding these concepts can help improve problem-solving methods for managing workplace conflicts and facilitate collaborative solutions when faced with difficult situations.

Principle 1: Loss Aversion

Imagine I told you that you’ve just won a million dollars. That news would likely improve your day and your mood. Now, what if I gave you the option to flip a coin—heads, you double your money; tails, you lose it all? Most people would decline the gamble, preferring to keep the million in hand rather than risk losing it.

Next, consider a different scenario. What if, instead of winning a million dollars, I told you that you owe me a million dollars, and I offer you the same coin flip—heads, you wipe out your debt; tails, you owe me two million. Based on many empirical studies, we know that most people would happily take the risk.

Both scenarios involve the same coin flip, but our reaction changes based on whether we're faced with a gain or a loss. This is the principle of loss aversion: We are more sensitive to losses than to gains, and we become risk-averse in the face of potential gain but risk-seeking in the face of loss. And according to Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman, we are significantly more risk-seeking in the domain of losses than we are risk-averse in the domain of gains. This bias is known as loss aversion.

In conflict resolution psychology, this can have serious implications. For example, if you’re in a mediation over a business deal that fell through and are offered a settlement that’s less than what you originally hoped for, you may decline simply because it feels like a loss. A mediator skilled in mediation tools can help reframe the situation to avoid the influence of loss aversion, prioritizing decisions based on rational analysis rather than emotional response.

Principle 2: The Availability Heuristic

Which causes more deaths overall: shark attacks or mechanical failures on airplanes causing crashes?

Most people immediately think of shark attacks because they can vividly recall media coverage of these terrifying incidents. But statistically,  . This discrepancy arises because of the availability heuristic: We tend to rely on information that comes easily to mind when making judgments, even if it’s not the most relevant or accurate.

In conflict management in psychology, this heuristic can lead to faulty decision-making. People often anchor their expectations on dramatic, highly publicized outcomes—like the rare faculty member who sues for millions after being denied tenure—rather than more common, less spectacular resolutions. A conflict resolver can help by refocusing discussions on more typical, realistic outcomes rather than sensationalized examples that distort judgment.

Principle 3: The Anchoring Bias

First impressions matter more than we might think. In one experiment, psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman asked participants to estimate the percentage of African nations in the United Nations after spinning a rigged wheel that landed either on 65 or 10, illustrating how initial cues can influence perception. Those who saw 65 guessed an average of 45%, while those who saw 10 guessed just 25%. This dramatic difference was caused by the anchoring bias: The random number on the wheel greatly influenced their final estimate.

In conflict resolution in psychology, anchoring bias can affect negotiation tactics when initial offers or positions disproportionately shape the outcome. A mediator’s role is to dig below surface-level positions to understand the true reference points influencing each party, helping to avoid the trap of initial, often arbitrary, anchors.

Conclusion

Throughout my career as a law professor, I’ve taught courses dedicated to how psychology influences negotiation tactics, conflict management styles and conflict resolution psychology. These principles—loss aversion, the availability heuristic and the anchoring bias—are just a few of the many cognitive biases that can derail rational decision-making in conflict situations.

For those interested in diving deeper into the intersection of psychology and conflict resolution, I highly recommend Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman and Misbehaving by Richard Thaler.

At JAMS Pathways, our conflict resolution professionals integrate both cognitive behavioral approaches and practical experience to create collaborative solutions that can aid your organization. Whether you're dealing with internal conflicts, seeking to enhance communication skills or attempting to foster a positive workplace culture, our tailored training programs can help. Or, if you’re looking for a more hands-on approach to managing conflict, discover how our can provide experienced conflict interventions that use constructive feedback, trust building strategies and other tailored conflict resolution strategies to meet your organization’s needs.