CRIM 6-DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT

COURSE DESCRIPTION: This course studies the different mechanisms to

deal with and resolve conflicts/disputes. It includes the art of intervention
through mediation and reconciliation between stakeholders and agencies
tasked to carry out the endeavor. Likewise, the course consists of the
concepts of crisis management and the proper procedure for handling the
Incident. Moreover, the study significantly provides mechanisms to adopt
strategies In dealing with potential and actual crises being addressed by
concerned agencies, authorities, and the community.

INTRODUCTION:

Dispute resolution is a way of resolving disagreements without going to

court. It is a good first step in reaching an agreement about many kinds of
problems, including disputes: between neighbors between separating
couples' landlords, and tenants about goods and services in the workplace. It
(also called 'alternative dispute resolution') involves the people in dispute
talking about the problem and agreeing on how to solve it. You may work out
a solution by yourself or seek help from an impartial person (someone not
involved in the dispute), such as a mediator.

Intended Learning Objective/s:

At the end of the semester, the students should be able to:

•Explain the basic concept of Conflict and differentiate the General theories
on the causes of Crime

TOPIC I- Early General Theories on the Causes of Crime

A. Conflict theories

Conflict theory posits that crime arises from societal conflicts

among different social classes, with laws derived from necessity rather than
consensus. The criminal justice system and law are believed to be a tool of
powerful social elites, controlling the poor and imposing moral standards.
This often results in severe punishments for street crimes, while large-scale
financial and business crimes are treated more leniently. Karl Marx, a German
philosopher and political economist, originated this theory. Sub-theories such
as left realism, radical feminism, peacemaking, and postmodernism have
emerged from this leading theory. The elites often co-opted the middle class,
believing they could rise to power by supporting the status quo.
 Conflict theory, proposed by Karl Marx, posits that society is
perpetually in conflict due to competition for limited resources. It suggests
that social order is maintained through domination and power, with the
bourgeoisie suppressing the poor and powerless. Marx argued that the
bourgeoisie would use Ideological coercion to oppress the majority class and
that worsening conditions could lead to revolt if not addressed.

In understanding conflict theory, competition between social

classes plays a key part. The following are four primary assumptions of
modern conflict theory:

1.Competition: Competition over scarce resources (money, leisure, sexual

partners, and so on) is at the heart of all social relationships. Competition
rather than consensus is characteristic of human relationships.

2.Structural inequality: Inequalities in power and reward are built into all
social structures. Individuals and groups that benefit from any structure
strive to see it maintained.

3.Revolution: Change occurs because of conflict between social classes

competing interests rather than through adaptation. It is often abrupt and
revolutionary rather than evolutionary.

4. War: Even war is a unifier of the societies involved, as well as war may
set an end to whole societies.

Aa. Conflict Theories

Conflict theory states that tensions and conflicts arise when resources,
status, and power are unevenly distributed between groups in society and
that these conflicts become the engine for social change.

Conflict theorists generally see power as the central feature of society, rather
than thinking of society as held together by collective agreement concerning
a cohesive set of cultural standards, as functionalists do. Where power is
located and who uses it (and who doesn't) is thus fundamental to conflict
theory. In this way of thinking about things, power isn't necessarily bad: it is
a primary factor that guides society and social relations.

The theories explaining causes of conflict include structural theory of conflict,

Marxist theory, international capitalist theory, realist theory, biological
theory, and psychological theory of conflict.
1. Structural Theory of conflict- posits that conflict arises from tensions
between groups competing for scarce resources. It identifies conditions like
social exclusion, deprivation, class inequalities, injustice, political
marginalization, gender imbalances, racial segregation, and economic
exploitation as contributing factors. However, this theory is limited in its one-
sided approach, overlooking the positive aspects of diversity and pluralism. It
only makes sense when viewed from a broad perspective and ignores
alternate causes.

2. Marxist Theory of Conflict- Karl Marx believed that a society's structure

is influenced by its economic structure and that conflict is the primary means
of change. He argued that capitalism, which exploits and oppresses the
bourgeoisie and proletariat, has polarized society and the state into two
incompatible classes. Marxism, however, has limitations, as it only looks at
dialectical materialism, not all aspects of conflict causation.

3. International Capitalism Theory of Conflict- This theory captures the

historical import of colonialism and imperialism.

4. Economic Theory of Conflict-Conflict arises from economic

undercurrents, often driven by scarcity. People seek power for economic
ends, leading to conflicts over resources and government allocation. Fear of
scarcity, like poverty and deprivation, can lead to fraud or corruption, and
can also fuel famine and mismanagement of scarce resources.

5. Realist Theory- Conflict is an inherent attribute of humans, as they live

with emotions and differing political interests. Realism, a blend of Marxist,
international capitalist, and economic theories, explains conflict as a product
of the Innate selfish nature of humans, leading to competitive processes and
erratic behavior. This selfish nature can result in hegemonic propensities,
Imperialism, and resistance, ultimately heating up the international system.

6. Feminist Theory -encompasses diverse ideas addressing global issues,

advocating for equal rights, justice, and fairness. Radical libertarian feminists
advocate for freedom, while radical cultural feminists urge women to break
free from heterosexuality. Marxist-socialist feminists argue for true freedom
in class-based societies, while multicultural feminists highlight the potential
for oppression.

7. Critical Race Theory (CRT) posits that racial inequality arises from
social, economic, and legal differences created by white people to maintain
elite white interests in labor markets and politics, leading to poverty and
criminality in minority communities.
8. Post-Structural Theory-Post-structuralism acknowledges the influence
of discourse on shaping both perceptions of reality and the concrete reality
perceived, even when not explicitly mentioned in textual presentations.

B. Critical Theory

The critical theory maintains that the definition of crime and its
laws are determined by a select few members of society, the elite, and that
those who commit crimes conflict with the laws designed to keep them under
control.

According to critical criminology, oppression of workers-especially

those from the less fortunate sections of society is what leads to crime, and
the most vulnerable members of society-such as women and ethnic
minorities are those who are most likely to experience discriminatory social
relations based on racism, sexism, and class distinctions. To put it another
way, critical criminology is any branch of criminology that considers the
circumstances surrounding crimes or offers criticism on subjects studied in
mainstream criminology.

The core concepts of critical theory are as follows:

1. That critical social theory should be directed at the totality of society in its
historical specificity (i.e. how it came to be configured at a specific point in
time), and

2. That critical theory should improve understanding of society by integrating

all the major

social sciences, including geography, economics, sociology, history, political

science, anthropology, and psychology.

Marx's critique of the economy and society presented in his

numerous publications is the source of critical theory as it is understood
today. It is primarily influenced by Marx's theoretical description of the
Interaction between the intellectual superstructure and the economic base,
and it focuses mainly on how dominance and power function in the
superstructure.
 The unique goal of a "critical theory" is to expose the ideology that
wrongly justifies a particular type of social or economic oppression, expose it
for what it is, and so aid in the effort to put an end to the oppression.
Therefore, critical theory aims to offer an emancipatory form of knowledge
about social and economic life, whereby people become aware of their
oppression and partially liberated from it.

This version of "critical" theory is based on how Kant (18th century)

and Marx (19th century) used the term "critique," as in Kant's Critique of
Pure Reason and Marx's idea that his work Das Kapital (Capital) forms a
"critique of political economy." For Kant's transcendental idealism, "critique"
refers to determining the boundaries of what constitutes a valid body of
knowledge, type, or faculty, particularly by considering the constraints
imposed by the fundamental, irreducible concepts used in that knowledge
system.

Adorno and Horkheimer's Dialectic of Enlightenment characterizes

critical theory as exhibiting uncertainty concerning the fundamental root of
social control, which results in pessimism regarding humanity's liberation and
self-determination. The growth of mass culture, state capitalism, and national
socialism are the leading causes of this tension.

In contrast with traditional theories, critical theory is a social theory

that aims to critique and transform society, as articulated by Max
Horkheimer in 1937. It has a normative component and seeks to free people
from enslaved situations by criticizing society from a broad theory of values
or within its own set of proclaimed principles.

C. Rational Choice Theory

Its assumptions about human behavior have been integrated into

numerous criminological theories and criminal justice interventions. Rational
choice theory originated during the late 18th century with the work of Cesare
Beccaria. Since then, the theory has been expanded upon and extended to
include other perspectives, such as deterrence, situational crime prevention,
and routine activity theory. The rational choice perspective has been applied
to various crimes, including robbery, drug use, vandalism, and white-collar
crime. Rational choice theory purports that a person will commit a crime
after determining if the pain or punishment is worth the pleasure or reward
of the act.
This theory comes from the Classical and Neoclassical Schools

Insists that crime is calculated and deliberate. All criminals are rational
actors who practice conscious decision-making, which simultaneously works
towards gaining the maximum benefits of their present situation. Another
aspect of rational choice theory is that many offenders make decisions based
on bounded/limited rationality.

D. Social Learning Theory

People develop the motivation and skills to commit crimes through

the people they associate with. Social Learning Theory is a theory of learning
and social behavior that proposes that new behaviors can be acquired by
observing and imitating others. It states that learning is a cognitive process
that occurs in an asocial context and can occur purely through observation or
direct Instruction, even without motor reproduction or direct reinforcement.
In addition to observing behavior, learning also occurs through the
observation of rewards and punishments, a process known as vicarious
reinforcement. When a particular behavior is rewarded regularly, it will most
likely persist; conversely, if a specific behavior is constantly punished, it will
most likely cease. The theory expands on traditional behavioral theories, in
which behavior is governed solely by reinforcements, by emphasizing the
Important roles of various internal processes in the learning individual

E. Labeling Theory

French sociologist Émile Durkheim's Suicide book argued that crime

is an act outraged by society, and deviant labeling satisfies this function.
George Herbert Mead's labeling theory suggests individuals are socially
constructed and reconstructed through Interactions with their community,
with each individual aware of their judgments due to their various roles and
functions.

Symbolic Interactionism, a sociological perspective in criminology,

focuses on the effects of individuals in power responding to negative
behavior in society. Scholars like Howard Becker and Emile Durkheim, Mead,
and Erikson argue that deviance is functional and maintains stability by
defining boundaries. Erikson expanded labeling theory to Include the
functions of deviance, illustrating how societal reactions stigmatize
offenders, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Frank Tannenbaum, the grandfather of labeling theory, introduced

the concept of 'tagging' in his 1938 work, Crime and Community. He found
that negative labels often led to delinquent activities, and the more attention
given to these labels, the more likely individuals are to identify as the label.

F. Sociological Sociology

Sociological Sociology encompasses a wide range of theoretical

perspectives, but generally regards crime as a social phenomenon,
emphasizing the cultural and social elements of criminal behavior. Some
sociological theories emphasize the relationship between social structures,
such as language, ethnicity class, and criminal behavior. Other theories
emphasize the effect of social conditions on an individual's propensity to
become involved in crime. Theories of this type often focus on the
relationship between crime and factors such as social inequality; the
influence of peers; social disorganization in a community; the consequences
for an individual of being unable to achieve social success; and the role of
criminal subcultures, including gangs. Sociological theories are often
criticized for not being able to provide strong evidence for the causal
relationships they posit. Nevertheless, they are important because they
complement the more individually focused biological and psychological
theories.

Responses include:

• programs to address multi-generational unemployment for a

particular group or in a particular area.

•programs that build cultural identity and positive community values

to lift self-esteem, and strengthen social connectedness; and

• anti-family violence programs that try to change norms and

behaviors about family violence.

G. Routine Activity Theory

Followers of the routine activity theory believe that crime is

Inevitable, and that if the target is attractive enough, crime will happen;
effective measures must be in place to deter crime from happening. Routine
Activity Theory is a sub-field of crime opportunity theory that focuses on
situations of crimes. It has been developed by Marcus Felson and Lawrence
E. Cohen,
 The premise of routine activity theory is that crime is relatively
unaffected by social causes such as poverty, inequality, and unemployment.
For instance, after World War II. the economy of Western countries was
booming, and the Welfare states were expanding. Despite this, crime rose
significantly during this time. According to Felson and Cohen, the reason for
the increase is that the prosperity of contemporary society offers more
opportunities for crime to occur; there is much more to steal.

Routine Activity Theory is controversial among sociologists who

believe in the social causes of crime. But several types of crime are very well
explained by routine activity theory; for instance, copyright infringement
related to sharing employees, and corporate crime.

Motivated offenders are individuals who are not only capable of

committing criminal activity, but are willing to do so. Suitable targets can be
a person or object that are seen by offenders as vulnerable or particularly
attractive. The factors that render a particular target attractive are
situational and crime specific.

Effectively create programs that make it more difficult not only for
people to commit crimes but also make them less easy to victimize and
cause harm to our society.

Routine Activities Theory is a theory of crime events. This differs

from a majority of criminological theories, which focus on explaining why
some people commit crimes-that is, the motivation to commit crime- rather
than how criminal events are produced. Although at first glance this
distinction may appear inconsequential, it has important implications for the
research and prevention of crime. Routine activities theory suggests that the
organization of routine activities in society create opportunities for crime.

Routine activities theory suggests that the organization of routine

activities in society create opportunities for crime. In other words, the daily
routine activities of people-including where they work, the routes they travel
to and from school, the groups with whom they socialize, the shops they
frequent, and so forth-strongly influence when, where, and to whom crime
occurs.

These routines can make crime easy and low risk, or difficult and
risky. Because opportunities vary over time, space, and among people, so
does the likelihood of crime. Therefore, research that stems from routine
activities theory generally examines various opportunity structures that
facilitate crime; prevention strategies that are informed by routine activities
theory attempt to alter these opportunity structures to prevent criminal
events.

Routine activities theory was initially used to explain changes in

crime trends over time. It has been increasingly used much more broadly to
understand and prevent crime problems. Researchers have used various
methods to test hypotheses derived from the theory. Since its inception, the
theory has become closely aligned with a set of theories and perspectives
known as environmental criminology, which focuses on the importance of
opportunity in determining the distribution of crime across time and space.

H. Low IQ Theory

Once the IQ-crime correlation is measured, the next task is to

explain it. Why are IQ and crime negatively correlated? Explanations of the
IQ-crime correlation typically take one of three approaches, that: (1) IQ and
crime are spurious, not causally, correlated; (2) low IQ increases criminal
behavior; or (3) criminal behavior decreases IQ.

A popular argument against IQ as a cause of crime criticizes IQ

tests as only measuring middle-class knowledge and values rather than
innate intelligence. As a result, the observation that some minority groups
and the poor score low on IQ tests simply reflects their diverse cultural
backgrounds. These same groups also commit proportionately more crime
because they suffer structural disadvantages such as poverty and
discrimination. Consequently, the same people who score low on IQ tests
also tend to commit more crime, and so IQ and crime are empirically
correlated, thus this correlation is not causal but reflects only culturally
biased testing of intelligence.

A variation of this argument holds that the structural

disadvantages that increase crime rates also reduce educational
opportunities thus lessening individuals' ability and motivation to score well
on IQ tests. The IQ-crime correlation they are both rooted in structural
disadvantage, which, in statistical terms, represents a "spurious" correlation.

Although these discrimination hypotheses have wide appeal, they

have received fairly little support in empirical studies, for IQ and crime are
significantly correlated within race and class groups as well as when
statistically controlling for race, class, test-taking ability, and test-taking
motivation (e.g., Hirschi and Hindelang; Lynam et al.).

Another argument against IQ as a cause of crime holds that school

teachers and administrators treat students differently by perceptions of the
students' intelligence-giving negative labels and fewer educational
opportunities to less intelligent students. These labels and constrained
opportunities, in turn, produce feelings of alienation and resentment that
lead students to delinquent peers and criminal behavior (Menard and Morse).
As such, society's reaction to Intelligence, and not any property of
intelligence itself, increases criminal behavior. Unfortunately, few studies
have adequately tested this labeling hypothesis.

A final argument against IQ holds that even if all people commit

crime with equal frequency, less intelligent people would be less able to
evade detection and would be arrested more often. This detection hypothesis
has received some empirical support in that IQ scores tend to correlate more
strongly with officially recorded crime than self-reported crime. However,
most studies still find a significant correlation between IQ and self-reported
crime, which is not easily explained by differential police detection (e.g.,
Moffitt and Silva).

In contrast to the above spurious arguments, some explanations

emphasize IQ as a cause of crime. The earliest causal explanation, popular
during the early 1900s, portrayed criminals as so "feebleminded" and
"mentally deficient" that they could neither distinguish right from wrong nor
resist criminal impulses. This feeblemindedness hypothesis, however, lost
favor long ago as it became clear that few criminals are mentally deficient,
and most recognize, though may not follow behavioral norms (Moffitt et al.).

A more recent, and more compelling, causal explanation

emphasizes the importance of intelligence-especially verbal intelligence-
during childhood socialization. The socialization of children involves constant
verbal communication and comprehension of abstract symbols; therefore,
children with poor verbal and cognitive skills have greater difficulty
completing the socialization process, which puts them at risk of under-
controlled, antisocial behavior. Empirical studies overall have supported this
developmental hypothesis (Moffitt, p. 116), and it fits with the especially
strong correlation between verbal IQ and crime.
 A final causal explanation links IQ to crime through school
performance. Less intelligent students do less well in school, which results in
academic frustration. This frustration, in turn, weakens their attachment and
commitment to schooling, and a weakened bond to school, as per social
control theory, allows for more criminal behavior (Hirschi and Hindelang).
This school-performance hypothesis has received strong support from
empirical studies, and it is probably the most widely accepted explanation of
the IQ-crime correlation (Moffitt).

One last approach to IQ and crime deserves mention even though

few criminological studies have examined it. Rather than low IQ increasing
criminal behavior, criminal behavior might decrease IQ. Many facets of a
criminal lifestyle can impair cognitive abilities, including physical injuries,
especially head traumas, drug use, and withdrawal from school (Moffitt).

I. Social Disorganization Theory

Social disorganization is defined as an inability of community

members to achieve shared values or to solve jointly experienced problems
(Bursik, 1988).

In sociology, the social disorganization theory is one of the most

important theories developed by the Chicago School, related to ecological
theories. The theory directly links crime rates to neighborhood ecological
characteristics; a core principle of social disorganization theory is that place
matters. In other words, a person's residential location is a substantial factor
shaping the likelihood that that person will become involved in illegal
activities. The theory suggests that, among determinants of a person's later
illegal activity, residential location is as significant as or more significant than
the person's individual characteristics (e.g., age, gender, or race). For
example, the theory suggests that youths from disadvantaged
neighborhoods participate in a subculture which approves of delinquency,
and that these youths thus acquire criminality in this social and cultural
setting.

Larry Gaines and Roger Miller state in their book Criminal Justice in
Action that "crime is largely a product of unfavorable conditions in certain
communities." According to the social disorganization theory, there are
ecological factors that lead to high rates of crime in these communities, and
these factors linked to constantly elevated levels of "high school dropouts,
unemployment, deteriorating infrastructures, and single-parent homes"
(Gaines and Miller). The theory is not intended to apply to all types of crime,
just street crime at the neighborhood level. The theory has not been used to
explain organized crime, corporate crime, or deviant behavior that takes
place outside neighborhood settings.

Edwin Sutherland adopted the concept of social disorganization to

explain the increases in crime that accompanied the transformation of
preliterate and peasant societies in which "influences surrounding a person
were steady, uniform, harmonious and consistent"-to modern Western
civilization, which he believed was characterized by inconsistency, conflict,
and un-organization (1934: 64). He also believed that the mobility, economic
competition, and individualistic ideology that accompanied capitalist and
industrial development had been responsible for the disintegration of the
large family and homogeneous neighborhoods as agents of social control.
The failure of extended kin groups expanded the realm of relationships no
longer controlled by the community and undermined governmental controls,
leading to persistent "systematic" crime and delinquency.

Sutherland also believed that such disorganization causes and

reinforces the cultural traditions and cultural conflicts that support antisocial
activity. The systematic quality of the behavior was a reference to repetitive,
patterned, or organized offending, as opposed to random events. He
depicted the law-abiding culture as dominant and more extensive than
alternative criminogenic cultural views, and as capable of overcoming
systematic crime if organized for that purpose (1939: 8). But because society
is organized around individual and small group interests, society permits
crime to persist. Sutherland concluded that if the society is organized
concerning the values expressed in the law, crime is eliminated; If it is not
organized, crime persists and develops (1939:8).

In later works, Sutherland switched from the concept of social

disorganization to differential social organization to convey the complexity of
overlapping and conflicting levels of organization in a society.

A person's physical and social environments are primarily

responsible for the behavioral choices that person makes. A neighborhood
that has fraying social structures is more likely to have high crime rates.
Such a neighborhood may have poor schools, vacant and vandalized
buildings, high unemployment, and a mix of commercial and residential
property.

J. Strain Theory

Societies are composed of two core aspects: culture and social structure.
It is in the realm of culture that our values, beliefs, goals, and identities are
developed. These are developed in response to the existing social structure
of society, which is supposed to provide the means for us to achieve our
goals and realize positive identities. However, often our cultural goals are not
in balance with means made available by the social structure, and this is
when structural strain occurs, and according to Merton, deviant behavior is
likely to occur.

Most people have similar aspirations, but they don't all have the same
opportunities or abilities. When people fail to achieve society's expectations
through approved means such as hard work and delayed gratification, they
may attempt to achieve success through crime. In sociology and criminology,
strain theory states that social structures within society may pressure
citizens to commit crimes.

Strain theory is a sociology and criminology theory developed in 1938 by

Robert K. Merton. The theory states that society puts pressure on individuals
to achieve socially accepted goals (such as the American dream) though
they lack the means, this leads to strain which may lead the individuals to
commit crimes. Examples being selling drugs or becoming involved in
prostitution to gain financial security.

Strain may either be:

1. Structural: this refers to the processes at the societal level that filter down
and affect how the individual perceives his or her needs, i.e. if particular
social structures are inherently inadequate or there is inadequate regulation,
this may change the individual's perceptions as to means and opportunities;
or

2. Individual: this refers to the frictions and pains experienced by an

individual as he or she looks for ways to satisfy his or her needs, i.e. if the
goals of a society become significant to an individual, achieving them may
become more important than the means adopted.

K. General Strain Theory

General Strain Theory (GST) is a sociology and criminology theory

developed in 1992 by Robert Agnew. The core idea of general strain theory is
that people who experience strain or stress become distressed or upset
which may lead them to commit crimes to cope. One of the key principles of
this theory is emotion as the motivator for crime. The theory was developed
to conceptualize the full range of sources in society where strain possibly
comes from, which Merton's strain theory does not. The theory also focuses
on the perspective of goals for status, expectations, and class rather than
focusing on money (as Merton's theory does). Examples of General Strain
Theory are people who use illegal drugs to make them feel better, or a
student assaulting his peers to end the harassment they caused.

GST introduces 3 main sources of strain such as:

1.Loss of positive stimuli (death of family or friend)

2.Presentation of negative stimuli (physical and verbal assaults)

3. The inability to reach a desired goal.

Strain theories state that certain strains or stressors increase the

likelihood of crime. These strains lead to negative emotions, such as
frustration and anger. These emotions create pressure for corrective action,
and crime is one possible response. Crime may be used to reduce or escape
from strain, seek revenge against the source of strain or related targets, or
alleviate negative emotions. For example, individuals experiencing chronic
unemployment may engage in theft or drug selling to obtain money, seek
revenge against the person who fired them or take illicit drugs to feel.
 TOPIC II: STRATEGIES IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION

a. Conflict

b. Types of Conflict

c. Forms of Conflict

d. Conflict Theories

e. Conflict Resolution Strategies

Intended Learning Objective/s:

At the end of the semester, the students should be able to:

• Explain the Strategies for Dispute Resolution

•Differentiate the Types of Conflict, Forms of Conflict, and Conflict Theories

LESSON 1: CONCEPTS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION:

Dispute resolution involves bringing two or more discordant parties to a clear

understanding wherein their differences are ironed out. It points to every
technique applied for settling disputes between entities.
Conflict

A conflict is an activity which takes place when conscious beings (individuals

or groups) wish to carry out mutually inconsistent acts concerning their
wants, needs, or obligations. (Nicholson, M., 1992) Conflict may also refer to
a natural disagreement or struggle between people which may be physical,
or between conflicting ideas. It can either be within one person, or it can
involve several people or groups. It exists when they have incompatible
goals and one or more believe that the behavior of the other prevents them
from their goal achievement. The word "Conflict" comes from the Latin word
"conflingere" which means to come together for a battle.

Types of Conflict

1. Intra-personal conflict is the conflict humans face within themselves, it

is a conflict between should and want. Should is always driven by values,
religious beliefs, upbringing, etc. Wants on the other hand are driven by the
environment which entices humans to indulge in overlooking should. the part
of human life, at all points humans face intrapersonal conflicts between
should and wants. Conflict arises when any kind of decision needs to be
taken, be it important or unimportant. Simple decisions like buying a car or
complex decisions like marriage or money. Every time a decision needs to be
taken, should and want to weigh on us, based on which we take a decision.

2. Inter-personal conflict occurs between two or more individuals that

work together in groups or teams. Conflict arises due to a variety of factors.
Individual differences in goals, expectations, values, proposed courses of
action, and suggestions about how to best handle a situation are
unavoidable. Beheshtifar et al (2013).

3. Man against society; man against nature- conflict is an external

struggle positioning the character against an animal or a force of nature,
such as a storm or any other natural disaster.

4. Family Conflict -This type of conflict occurs in a family unit. Sociologists

would describe this as intra-unit conflict. In most cases, these conflicts arise
from crises occasioned by familial roles, expectations, and role conflict.
Examples include father-son, mother-father, husband-wife, and brother-sister
conflict. It may also imply cousin-cousin, nephew-uncle, sister-in-law, or
brother-in-law conflict. Such conflicts may be caused by