Rethinking Interpersonal Conflict Strategies: Is Avoiding really that Bad? by Jiro Takai

In his Featured Presentation Prof. Jiro Takai discusses his research on interpersonal conflict resolution strategies. Conflicts abound in our everyday relationships, and their skillful management is the key to interpersonal harmony. In dealing with conflict, the perception is that we should directly confront the other party with the issues, followed by constructive, mutual communication, and negotiating a solution that leads to both parties being able to fully fulfill their respective goals. At the other end of effectiveness scale is the avoiding conflict style. Avoiding leaves the issue outstanding, with the other party not aware of doing you any injustice, and your dissatisfaction with him/her increasing until you snap. Avoiding, according to Rahim (2002), lacks self-concern, as well as other-concern, leaving nothing resolved, and surely ending up in a lose-lose situation. This talk will elaborate on why, when and how avoiding can actually be a wise choice in managing interpersonal conflict.

Jiro Takai is professor of social psychology at Nagoya University, Japan. He has served in the executive committees of the Japan Society for Social Psychology, the Japan Group Dynamics Society, the Japan Intercultural Education Society, the Communication Association of Japan, and the Japan-US Communication Association. His research interests include cross-cultural matters, particularly in the context of interpersonal communication as well as interpersonal competence, self-presentation and multi-faceted self-concept.

Prof. Takai was Conference Co-Chair and a Featured Presenter at the IAFOR Asian Conference on Psychology & the Behavioral Sciences 2014 (ACP2014) and the Asian Conference on Ethics, Religion & Philosophy 2014 (ACERP2014) in Osaka, Japan. To watch a follow up interview with Prof. Takai on conflict avoidance please visit:

For more information please visit:

[Woland]

I don’t like the fact you talk about conflict directly. I think the bases is simple problem addressing. Sharing experience and your feelings for instance. Then start a discussion. Calling this conflict upfront makes it a bit harsh upfront. I’ve seen Japanese that would take the remark « the soup is salty » as a direct conflict déclaration though, like it was a direct fundamental attack, and not just an invitation for a joint problem resolution invitation.

[Woland]

Haha thé murder raté example is not good. To keep harmony you suicide. Show the numbers of suicide stats! 😂

[tarkov]

Problem with avoiding conflict all the time is that even slight conflict get seen as big conflict. Nevermind it shows you don't trust the other person to handle themselves. You are taking something that works in a very homogeneous country and trying to say it will work for very heterogeneous countries. It only works cause everyone else has a shared background in a high context society...

[lisasays]

The air translation might be comparable the way we talk about, "vibes."

[lewiszim]

6:41 The payouts for all of those strategies depends on the utility function for each player. It's impossible to make generalizations like, "compromising is worse for both parties."

9:04 Um, no. The murder rate is conflated by so many other factors that it's absurd to draw this kind of absolute causal connection. For example, there's Japan's draconian legal system and total ban of guns. If guns weren't banned in Japan the murder rate would go up in spite of Japan's "wa" philosophy.

You could argue that the gun ban exists exactly because harmony is valued, but the fact remains that the murder rate is influenced by the political situation (not to mention other things) speaks strongly against this causal connection between avoiding conflict and the murder rate that the speaker is trying to draw.

10:10 These numbers are not surprising, but it would be nice to have some information about how this was tested.

15:05 Well, yes. Debates should be fostered. Since you're speaking very generally in this segment about what's right and what's wrong, let me do the same. Debates help foster creativity, opinions, and character as a whole. Bullying out on the school playground, which you bring up, is something else. But the instinct to express your viewpoint is not a bad one. It's paramount to becoming a better, free thinking, open-minded individual. And it's those sorts of people who improve society.