In a new study published in Small Group Research, researchers from Carnegie Mellon University, Indiana University, the University of California, Los Angeles, California State University, Stony Brook University, the University of Melbourne, INSEAD and an independent research team developed a tool designed to measure these distinct patterns. Called the Conflict Expression Tendencies, or CET, measure, the instrument is intended to show how members of a workgroup typically communicate opposition, rather than simply identifying what a disagreement is about or whether it was resolved.

“Past studies of workplace conflict have tended to take two approaches—focusing on what a conflict is about and how conflicts are managed,” says Laurie R. Weingart, Richard M. and Margaret S. Cyert Professor of Organizational Behavior and Theory at Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business and a coauthor of the study. “In our research, we took a different approach, focusing on how conflict is expressed.” That shift places communication behavior itself at the center of analysis, allowing researchers to examine the social signals carried by disagreement: how visible it is, how forcefully it is delivered and how easily other people can interpret it.

The CET framework organizes conflict expression along two technical dimensions: directness and intensity. Directness refers to whether opposition is communicated openly and unmistakably, while intensity reflects the strength, emotional charge or force of the challenge. Combining those dimensions produces four measurable tendencies: arguing, debating, subverting and disguising. The categories do not simply label employees as aggressive or cooperative. Instead, they describe the communication climate a group tends to create when its members resist ideas, decisions or one another’s behavior.

Debating represents opposition that is relatively direct but comparatively low in intensity. A team member may clearly question an assumption, request evidence or propose an alternative without making the exchange personal or hostile. Arguing combines directness with higher intensity, making disagreement more forceful and potentially more emotionally charged. Subverting involves opposition expressed less directly but with greater intensity beneath the surface, including behaviors such as social undermining, obstruction or passive aggression. Disguising is both less direct and less intense: disagreement may be hidden behind silence, strategic politeness, ambiguous comments or apparent agreement that does not reflect a person’s actual view.

The researchers describe the scale as an integration of workplace conflict concepts that have often been studied separately. Open disagreement, debate and argument have traditionally received more attention than subtle forms of resistance. Yet indirect behaviors can also influence whether a group functions effectively. A colleague who withholds information, quietly blocks a proposal or signals disapproval through exclusion may create serious problems even when no explicit confrontation occurs. By measuring these forms together, the CET approach aims to distinguish the unique contribution of each pattern instead of treating every negative interaction as the same type of conflict.

Across six studies involving participants from both laboratory and field settings, the researchers tested whether the measure was reliable and whether it was connected to meaningful individual outcomes. The studies included diverse participants and examined cognitive, affective and psychological responses to conflict expression. The results indicated that the way opposition was communicated mattered. In general, debating was associated with greater information acquisition, more positive affect and higher trust. Arguing, subverting and disguising were generally linked to less favorable outcomes, although the effects depended on how people perceived the interaction and the social environment in which it occurred.

The apparent advantage of debating may be explained by its combination of clarity and restraint. Direct communication makes disagreement easier to interpret: team members can identify the issue, evaluate the evidence and respond to the substance of the challenge. Lower intensity may reduce the threat that often causes people to defend their status rather than reconsider their assumptions. In this sense, debate can preserve the informational value of dissent while limiting the interpersonal costs of confrontation. It does not eliminate disagreement; it makes disagreement more usable for collective decision-making.

The findings also suggest that conflict is not experienced identically by everyone in the same group. Two employees may participate in the same exchange but interpret it differently depending on their expectations, personalities, prior relationships and beliefs about conflict. One worker may view a direct question as constructive scrutiny, while another may experience it as disrespect. A seemingly polite interaction may also be interpreted as evasive or manipulative by someone who suspects that opposition is being concealed. Because of this perceptual variation, the CET measure is designed to capture conflict expression tendencies through the eyes of multiple workgroup members rather than relying only on one observer or a manager’s assessment.

Yeonjeong Kim, lead author of the study, visiting assistant professor of management at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business and a former Tepper doctoral student, says the measure could help leaders diagnose conflict more precisely. Instead of responding to every disagreement with the same intervention, managers could identify whether a group needs clearer channels for direct discussion, stronger protections against retaliation or strategies for reducing indirect undermining. A team dominated by high-intensity arguing may need practices that lower emotional escalation, while a group characterized by disguising may need mechanisms that make it safer for employees to voice concerns openly.

The researchers emphasize that the CET scale is not intended to classify conflict as universally good or bad without considering context. A forceful challenge may be necessary when safety, ethics or major organizational risks are involved, while even mild disagreement can become destructive if it is deliberately concealed or used to isolate a colleague. The measure’s value lies in making patterns visible: who speaks directly, who holds back, how much emotional force enters the exchange and whether opposition is helping the group think more effectively or quietly eroding trust. By turning these patterns into measurable dimensions, the study offers organizations a more detailed vocabulary for understanding the conflicts that shape everyday work.

Subject of Research: Conflict expression tendencies and their effects on workgroup communication, trust, information acquisition and employee psychological outcomes.

Article Title: “Conflict Expression Tendencies in Workgroups: Measure Validation and a Test of Theory”

Web References: https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964261448469

References: Small Group Research, article published June 11, 2026.

Keywords: Workplace conflict, workgroups, conflict expression, debating, arguing, subverting, disguising, organizational behavior, team management, workplace communication, trust, psychological outcomes

Messages embedded within social science research often underscore the nuances behind divergent societal values, and this study is no exception. By analyzing how each party prioritizes different facets of peace agreements, the survey reveals critical insights into what could feasibly unite both nations. Throughout the survey period, a systematic approach was embraced by varying eight essential components of each agreement. This rigorous method allowed the researchers to favorably gauge the strength of preferences and identify collective areas of agreement while exposing the nuanced disparities in expectations between Israelis and Palestinians.

The results unraveled a potential "Zone of Possible Agreements" (ZOPA), where 55 peace deals emerged as mutually preferable solutions to the prevailing status quo. Not surprisingly, respondents revealed stark differences in their priorities. While Israelis predominantly emphasized the recognition of Israel as a state for the Jewish people, Palestinians directed their focus toward halting ongoing settlement expansions. This divergence points toward the deeply rooted historical grievances that continue to characterize the conflict, revealing just how challenging it remains to forge a consensus.

Equally notable is the stark realization that a substantial portion of each demographic is unsatisfied with the current situation. Among participants, 17% of Israelis and a striking 41% of Palestinians ranked the status quo as the least favorable option. Acknowledging this dissatisfaction lays the groundwork for potential progress, as it indicates a recognition among both parties that meaningful change is desired. Consequently, the implications are profoundly significant; the potential to prioritize shared values and reach agreements beyond entrenched positions is within reach.

When examining the peace agreements identified in this research, it becomes evident that genuinely supported proposals do not necessarily reflect the highest intentions of either group but rather highlight practical improvements to daily life. As the researchers detailed, agreements promoting freedom of movement, mutual access to significant sites, and the release of prisoners serve reflective practices towards a more peaceful existence. This forward-looking approach transcends the contentious roots, suggesting paths toward coexistence.

Demographic variables further complicate this narrative. The research indicates that women and older participants exhibit a greater willingness to compromise compared to their younger and male counterparts. This has profound implications for future negotiations and indicates that generational differences might serve as both a challenge and an opportunity in the peace process. Engaging diverse voices across age groups and genders will be crucial in presenting a cohesive front towards the development of a comprehensive peace agenda.

Furthermore, the negative influence of violence on the willingness to compromise became glaringly apparent during the study. Exposure to conflict can be a powerful determinant in shaping perspectives. Particularly among Israelis, higher incidences of violence correlated with a decreased readiness to embrace negotiations. Hence, the study underscores the importance of addressing the underlying tensions that fuel hostilities, suggesting that fostering a peaceful environment will be essential for any future discussions.

The urgency presented by these findings cannot be overstated. As noted by the researchers, achieving an immediate cessation of hostilities and the release of hostages stands as a crucial step toward rebuilding trust and allowing for meaningful dialogue. Without this foundational shift, the prospects for developing the necessary political will for peace agreements diminish significantly.

In terms of broader implications, this research serves as a vital contribution to the field of conflict resolution. It highlights the necessity of understanding individuals’ preferences as cornerstones of successful negotiation strategies. These insights can not only shape peace initiatives but also pave the way for broader discourses on international mediations.

Through this survey, Cavatorta and her colleagues have provided an essential mapping of the terrain upon which future peace initiatives could be constructed. Their findings illuminate the pathways available for dialogue and negotiation while emphasizing the realistic expectations on both parties. The intricate balance of interests requires dedicated engagements to acknowledge and navigate the delicate interplay of aspirations within opposing narratives.

As we look to the future, these insights serve not merely as academic reflections but as actionable frameworks that highlight a roadmap toward achieving significant advancements in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The convergence of willingness, shared values, and robust dialogue could potentially mark significant strides for peace in a setting long characterized by division.

In conclusion, the message resonates loudly: peace is possible, provided there is a concerted will and understanding to seek common ground. Researchers, mediators, and policymakers alike should heed these findings to craft strategies that foster healing and encourage collaborative efforts at resolution. As the landscape of conflict continues to evolve, so too should our approaches to nurturing dialogue and rebuilding relationships.

Subject of Research: Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreements
Article Title: Revealing the zone of possible agreement between parties in conflict: An application to Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements
News Publication Date: 21-Jan-2025
Web References:
References:
Image Credits: Cavatorta et al.
Keywords: Israeli-Palestinian conflict, peace agreements, international relations, social sciences, conflict resolution.