C-Escalation and D-Escalation: A Theory of the Time-Dynamics of Conflict
Abstract
Conflict escalates through a series of feedback loops. On the micro level, conflict generates conditions for intense interaction rituals, and internal solidarity fuels external conflict. Perceived atrocities reciprocally increase ideological polarization between opponents, while confrontational tension/fear makes violence incompetent and produces real atrocities. Conflict groups seek allies, drive out neutrals, and mobilize material resources. Both sides in a conflict counter-escalate through the same set of feedbacks. Winning and losing are determined by differences between rates of escalation and by attacks that one-sidedly destroy organizational and material capacity. Conflict de-escalates because both sides fail to find conditions for solidarity, cannot overcome confrontational tension/fear, and exhaust their material resources. Emotional burnout sets in through a time dynamic of explosion, plateau, and dissipation of enthusiasm. Defection of allies opens the way for third-party settlement. When both sides remain stalemated, initial enthusiasm and external polarization give way to emergent internal factions—a victory faction (hard-liners) versus a peace faction (negotiators)—creating new conflict identities. Ideals promoted at the outset of conflict become obstacles to resolution at the end.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Polarization on digital media is driven by conflict rather than isolation.
“The suggestion is, in short, that polarization on digital media is driven by conflict rather than isolation (117), affording a form of politics rooted in identity rather than opinion (4).”
From How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting (2022) · cites this paper as [117]
Cites
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 · Cited by 7,678 · see citing works
Collins, R. (2004) · doi:10.1515/9781400851744 · Cited by 4,726 · see citing works
Self-citationNegativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0504_2 · Cited by 4,342 · see citing works
Martin, J. L. (2009) · doi:10.1515/9781400830534 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting
Törnberg, P. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2207159119 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
- Authors
- Collins, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Collins, Randall
- Venue
- American Sociological Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-01-25
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-20
- ISSN
- 0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-8271
- OpenAlex
- W2120704664
- Cited by
- 139
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 23.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Sociological Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- conflict escalation, conflict de-escalation, feedback loops, interaction rituals, solidarity, atrocities, ideological polarization, coalition formation, mobilization, burnout, factionalism, peace negotiations, conflict resolution
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review