A stage model of conflict escalation, adapted from F. Glasl (reference below)
| Stage | Conflict issues | Behavioural norms | In-group/out-group cognitions and attitudes | Treshold to next level |
| 1. "Hardening" |
Objective issues Hardening standpoints |
Straight argumentation |
Awareness of mutual dependence Nascent role expectations Nascent in-/out-group formation, "skins" form around groups Suspicions about hidden motives |
Tactical tricks used in the argumentation |
| 2. "Debates and polemics" |
Objective issues and relative position, superiority Ability to influence |
Verbal confrontations Tactical feints in argumentation Debates |
Affinity inwards Fixation at standpoints Ambivalence cooperation/ competition Suspiciousness Counterpart has "typical behaviour" |
Action without consultation |
| 3. "Actions, not words" |
Objective issues and self-image Freedom of action Prove one’s own mastery Blocking the counterpart |
Action without consultation Accomplished facts Symbolic behaviour (jargon) Decreased verbal communication - increased non-verbal communication Extended social arena |
Blocked empathy "Counterpart not capable of development" In-group conformity pressure |
"Deniable punishment behaviour" Covert attacks directly aimed at identity of counterpart |
| 4. "Images and coalitions" |
Counterpart is the problem Win or lose Save reputation |
"Deniable punishment behaviour" Exploitation of gaps in norms Formation of coalitions Attacks on core identity |
Dual cognition (black/white) Coherent enemy image Attribution of collective characteristics to counterpart Self-image as only reacting to counterpart |
Loss of face |
| 5. "Loss of face" |
Fundamental values Expose counterpart Rehabilitate dignity |
Attacks on the public face of the counterpart Restore prestige |
Enemy "unmasked": perceived as morally corrupt Guilt symbiosis in-group |
Ultimatum Strategic threats |
| 6. "Strategies of threats" | Control of counterpart |
Presentation of ultimata Panic-ruled actions Self-binding statements Extension of conflict |
Own actions are only reactions Perceived impotence –> rage Need for control |
Execution of ultimata Attacks on counterparts sanction potential |
|
7. "Limited destructive blows" |
Hurt counterpart more than one’s own group Nothing to gain Survival |
Attacks at sanction potential Threats + interrupted communi- cation |
Counterpart prepared to do anything Counterpart not human Power-thinking dominates Malice important motive |
Attacks at core of enemy Effort to shatter enemy |
| 8. "Fragmentation of the enemy" |
Annihilate counterpart Survival |
Attacks at vital functions Actions to shatter counterpart Attacks on cohesive function |
Annihilation fantasies Fascination with mechanical annihilation mechanisms |
Giving up self-preservation Total war |
| 9. "Together into the abyss" | Annihilation at any cost |
Total war with all means Limitless violence |
Accept one’s own destruction if counterpart is destroyed |
– |