Conflict frames in the wild: win-lose frames are more common, but mixed and win-win frames are more effective

Abstract

In controlled studies, conflicts are often interpreted as win-lose situations. Yet, it remains unclear whether this tendency extends to real-world conflicts. To address this question, we examine two competing perspectives on conflict frame prevalence: one assuming that win-lose frames dominate in real-world conflicts and another suggesting that win-win frames are more common. Drawing on conflict resolution and coalition bargaining theory, we test the hypothesis that win-win frames are more effective than win-lose frames in influencing both interdependent counterparts and independent third parties. Results of two archival studies using political participation data reveal that win-lose frames were more frequent in real-world conflicts than win-win frames. However, while win-lose frames were the most common, mixed frames proved to be the most effective in influencing interdependent counterparts. Additionally, both win-win and mixed frames had the strongest impact on independent third parties. Our findings highlight a fundamental gap between how people typically interpret conflict and how effectively conflict frames influence others.