Conflict groups are moderated discussions conducted in situations of polarization and opposing views, where it is important to understand not just what people think, but why they think that way, where the dividing line lies, and what might trigger escalation. They are used when there is a real conflict over topics, values, interests, or identity, and when you want to test arguments, messages, and approaches in advance before making a decision or going public.
What distinguishes conflict groups from classic focus groups is that they intentionally create and "challenge" conflict around opinions and thinking, but under controlled conditions. Not to provoke fights, but to see how people react when they hear opposing views: whether they are willing to listen, whether they reject dialogue, where their acceptance boundaries are, how open they are to compromise, support, or at least tolerating the other side, and what counter-arguments emerge. In practice, conflict groups often show that people do not reject the message because of its content, but because of tone, words that irritate them, feelings of injustice, or distrust toward the messenger.
Moderation in conflict groups is crucial. Conflict is not left to chance; it is guided and controlled by experienced moderators, with clear conversation rules and pacing that prevents the discussion from turning aggressive, while allowing the essence to emerge. The goal is to observe triggers, emotions, arguments, and mechanisms of rejection or acceptance, as well as points where de-escalation is possible in the real dynamics of “clashing” views.
What do conflict groups look like?
First, we identify key parties and dividing lines: who are the actors, who is the “hard core,” who is flexible, who is neutral, and who has the potential to change stance. Then we choose the approach best suited to the situation: sometimes we run separate groups by side (to gain deeper insight without pressure), and sometimes we run mixed groups where views directly confront each other under strictly guided moderation.
During the discussion, we test different conversation frames, arguments, and messages. We check what causes resistance and “closing off” and what opens space for dialogue. We pay special attention to participants’ willingness to: engage in conversation without insults, acknowledge part of the other side’s arguments, compromise, support certain solutions, accept a common minimum, or at least tolerate differences.
Benefits of conflict groups:
- Real understanding of both sides and the reasons behind their views, without assumptions
- Insight into acceptance boundaries: what is acceptable and what triggers immediate resistance
- Testing willingness for dialogue, compromise, support, or tolerance of the other side
- Detection of conflict “triggers”: words, tone, topics, and symbols that escalate the situation
- Testing messages and arguments under conditions of opposing views
- Identifying opportunities for de-escalation and common ground
- Controlled and safe discussion with experienced moderation and clear rules
Conflict groups are ideal when you want to reduce the risk of counterproductive communication and understand how different sides react to the same information. Sometimes the goal is not to “convince” the other side, but to find a way to converse without deepening divides and maintain credibility with those fatigued by conflict but still listening.
In the end, you get clear summarized findings: where the points of conflict are, what the dominant emotion is, what escalates the situation, what calms it, how much room there is for dialogue and compromise, and which messages or approaches have the highest chance of acceptance.
