Three Questions That Can Transform Conflict Conversations

April 30, 2026

Conflict engagement often requires disciplined inquiry into how people defend and sustain their competing realities. In facilitation, mediation, and negotiation, parties are rarely arguing only about facts. They are advancing narratives that allocate blame and justify action. When those narratives collide, our task is not to declare a winner. It is to loosen certainty and expand perspective.

Narrative approaches to conflict remind us that disputes endure because people become attached to the stories that organize their understanding of events (Monk & Winslade, 2000; White & Epston, 1990). These stories are remarkably selective and identity protective. While they are often paradoxical, they also often resistant to contradiction. Conflict, in this sense, is not just about incompatible interests. It is about incompatible interpretations of reality (Deutsch et al., 2011). Our role is to engage those interpretations without becoming captured by them.

One practical way to do this is through three deceptively simple questions. “How do you know that?”, “Compared to what?”, and “Who decides?” Each question targets a different dimension of how narratives are built and sustained. Used skillfully, they offer a disciplined method for transforming conflict conversations.

The first question, “How do you know that?”, focuses on the foundation of a claim. It invites constituents and stakeholders to examine the basis of what they are asserting. In many conflicts, individuals present interpretations as if they were facts. This question disrupts that tendency. It asks whether a claim is grounded in direct observation or simply assumption.

Importantly, this is not a cross-examination. The tone matters as much as the content. When asked with genuine curiosity, the question signals interest rather than challenge. It creates space for reflection instead of defensiveness. Parties begin to distinguish between what they have observed and the meaning they have assigned to those observations. This differentiation aligns with negotiation theory’s emphasis on separating positions from interests (Fisher et al., 2011).

Research on judgment and decision-making shows that individuals often rely on heuristics and incomplete information when forming beliefs (Kahneman, 2011; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). More recent scholarship has continued to show that cognitive biases remain central to organizational and strategic decision-making, especially under conditions of uncertainty and change (Acciarini et al., 2021). In addition, people tend to construct causal narratives that selectively link events in ways that reinforce preferred conclusions (Eliaz & Spiegler, 2018). By asking “How do you know that?”, we can expose the scaffolding of those narratives and slows down automatic cognitive processes. This question does not invalidate the claim. It makes the reasoning behind it visible.

The second question, “Compared to what?”, addresses how people evaluate fairness. Most conflict claims are comparative, even when the comparison is not stated. A constituent or stakeholder might insist that an offer is unfair, a process is biased, or an outcome is simply unacceptable. By asking “Compared to what?”, brings that benchmark into the open. This question shifts the conversation from absolute claims to relative ones. It invites disputants to articulate the standard they are using. Often, that standard turns out to be unrealistic or remarkably inconsistent.

This move is especially effective in breaking rigid positions. Social comparison theory demonstrates that individuals evaluate outcomes not only based on objective value, but also on how those outcomes compare to others (Festinger, 1954). Empirical research further shows that people sometimes prefer inferior absolute outcomes if those outcomes improve their relative standing (Solnick & Hemenway, 1998). In conflict settings, dissatisfaction is therefore often driven less by objective loss and more by perceived inequity.

Once a comparison is identified, it can be examined and, if necessary, recalibrated. We can introduce alternative benchmarks from other domains such as industry standards or legal norms. This aligns with the use of objective criteria in principled negotiation, which helps constituents and stakeholders move beyond positional bargaining (Fisher et al., 2011). As the range of comparisons expands, positions often soften and new options emerge.

The third question, “Who decides?”, turns attention to authority and legitimacy. Every conflict contains an implicit answer to this question, whether it has been articulated or not. Parties are not only disagreeing about what happened or what is fair. They are also, often implicitly, disagreeing about who has the right to make those decisions. Bringing this question into the open clarifies the structure of the conflict. It forces a conversation about decision rules. In some contexts, the answer may be formal, such as a judge or arbitrator. In other contexts, the answer is more fluid, requiring the parties themselves to negotiate both substance and process.

This question is particularly important where there are power imbalances. It highlights issues of legitimacy and procedural fairness. Research in procedural justice consistently shows that individuals are more likely to accept outcomes when they perceive the decision-making process as fair, even if the outcome is unfavorable (Tyler, 2006; Lind & Tyler, 1988). More recent work has also demonstrated that procedural justice remains highly relevant to the design of dispute resolution systems, particularly in administrative settings where perceptions of fairness affect trust, engagement, and acceptance of outcomes (Wever & Ybema, 2024). It also connects to the concept of BATNA, which defines who effectively decides if no agreement is reached (Fisher et al., 2011; Lewicki et al., 2016).

By making authority explicit, we help disputants understand both constraints and opportunities. They can better assess whether they want to retain control through negotiation or defer to an external decision-maker. This clarity often shifts the strategic posture of the parties and encourages more realistic engagement.

These three questions are not meant to be used in a rigid sequence. They are tools that can be deployed dynamically as the conversation unfolds. A claim about fairness may lead to “Compared to what?”, which reveals an assumption that invites “How do you know that?”, which in turn raises questions about who has the authority to define fairness. The process is iterative.

Together, these questions function as a form of narrative deconstruction. Rather than attacking a constituent or stakeholder’s story directly, they examine its components. This approach is consistent with narrative mediation, which seeks to externalize the problem and separate it from the person (Monk & Winslade, 2000). It also reflects the transformative model of mediation, which emphasizes empowerment and recognition as pathways to conflict change (Bush & Folger, 2005). By reducing defensiveness and encouraging reflection, we create space for re-authoring the narrative (White & Epston, 1990).

The effectiveness of these questions depends heavily on delivery. Poorly timed or poorly framed, they can sound dismissive or confrontational. Skillfully used, they can shift the entire tone of the conversation. The goal is not to expose inconsistency or win a point. It is to invite reflection and expand understanding.

These questions also serve as a diagnostic tool. They help identify where the conflict is stuck. If parties are locked in a dispute about facts, the issue may be epistemological, and “How do you know that?” can be particularly useful. If the conflict centers on fairness or value, “Compared to what?” may unlock movement. If the disagreement is about process or legitimacy, “Who decides?” becomes central.

We can turn these questions inward. Mediators and facilitators are not immune to bias. They also construct narratives about what is happening in conflict. Reflective practice requires interrogating one’s own assumptions, a process supported by research on negotiation bias and judgment (Bazerman & Moore, 2013; Lewicki et al., 2016). By applying these questions to themselves, practitioners can maintain greater neutrality and effectiveness.

At its core, conflict is not simply a disagreement over events. It is a contest over meaning. The questions “How do you know that?”, “Compared to what?”, and “Who decides?” provide a practical and intellectually grounded way to engage that contest. They shift the conversation from positions to reasoning, from absolutes to comparisons, and from implicit assumptions to explicit choices. They offer a mindset. They encourage curiosity over certainty. In a field where conversations often stall under the weight of competing narratives, that shift can make all the difference.

References

Acciarini, C., Brunetta, F., & Boccardelli, P. (2021). Cognitive biases and decision-making strategies in times of change: A systematic literature review. Management Decision, 59(3), 638–652.

Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2013). Judgment in managerial decision making (8th ed.). Wiley.

Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P. (2005). The promise of mediation: The transformative approach to conflict (Rev. ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., & Marcus, E. C. (2011). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Eliaz, K., & Spiegler, R. (2018). A model of competing narratives. American Economic Review, 108(12), 3782–3814.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2016). Negotiation (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer.

Monk, G., & Winslade, J. (2000). Narrative mediation: A new approach to conflict resolution. Jossey-Bass.

Solnick, S. J., & Hemenway, D. (1998). Is more always better? A survey on positional concerns. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 37(3), 373–383.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.

Wever, M., & Ybema, J. F. (2024). Procedural justice and the design of administrative dispute resolution procedures. Social Justice Research, 37, 76–99.

White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. W. W. Norton.

John Potter is a clinical professor of dispute resolution and conflict management in Human-Centered Interdisciplinary Studies at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas.