This comparison draws in part from “Conflict management for behavior analysts” by Ellie Kazemi, PhD (BehaviorLive), and extends it with peer-reviewed research from our library of 27,900+ ABA research articles. The decision framework, BACB ethics code references, and cross-links below are synthesized by Behaviorist Book Club.
View the original presentation →Two frameworks dominate practical conflict management training in professional settings. Position-based negotiation — the approach most people default to — involves each party advocating for their preferred outcome and negotiating toward a midpoint. Interest-based negotiation (from Fisher and Ury's principled negotiation model) moves beneath positions to identify the underlying interests each party is trying to satisfy, then seeks solutions that address those interests directly.
ACT-informed conflict management adds a third dimension: the internal processes of the practitioner navigating the conflict. Both position-based and interest-based negotiation assume a rational, cognitively available practitioner. In practice, conflict activates cognitive fusion, experiential avoidance, and values-behavior misalignment that make rational negotiation difficult. ACT addresses these internal barriers first, creating the psychological flexibility that allows interest-based negotiation to function.
For behavior analysts, ACT has an additional advantage: it is grounded in the same behavioral science that underlies their clinical work. Applying RFT-based principles to their own cognitive processes during conflict is an extension of the analytical framework they already use, not the importation of a foreign model.
| Factor | Evidence-Based Approach | Traditional Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Target of intervention | Position-based: The stated positions of each party; seeks compromise between competing demands | ACT-informed: The practitioner's internal processes (fusion, avoidance, values-behavior gaps) as prerequisites to productive negotiation |
| Mechanism of resolution | Position-based: Bargaining and concession exchange until an acceptable midpoint is reached | ACT-informed: Values clarification and psychological flexibility that allow genuine collaborative problem-solving rather than position defense |
| Applicability to high-arousal conflicts | Position-based: Assumes cognitive availability; less effective when emotional arousal is high | ACT-informed: Directly addresses arousal through defusion and acceptance, creating conditions for productive engagement |
| Alignment with behavioral science | Position-based: Based on game theory and rational choice models not specifically grounded in behavioral science | ACT-informed: Based on Relational Frame Theory and behavioral principles already familiar to ABA practitioners |
| Long-term relationship quality | Position-based: Repeated compromise can produce resentment if one party consistently concedes more | ACT-informed: Values-consistent, psychologically flexible engagement builds trust even in difficult conversations |
| Training implications | Position-based: Can be trained through negotiation skills workshops; primarily behavioral/strategic | ACT-informed: Requires both skill training and experiential practice with defusion and values clarification |
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Use this framework when approaching conflict management for behavior analysts in your practice:
Does the data support a need for intervention? Is there a meaningful impact on the individual's quality of life, safety, or access to reinforcement?
YES → Proceed to assessment NO → Document reasoning, monitor
A functional assessment should guide intervention selection. Avoid defaulting to standard protocols without individual analysis. Consider environmental variables, setting events, and private events.
YES → Select evidence-based approach matched to function NO → Complete assessment first
Goals should be co-developed. Assent and informed consent are ethical requirements. The individual's preferences and values matter in selecting both goals and methods.
YES → Proceed with collaborative plan NO → Engage in shared decision-making
This course covers the clinical and ethical dimensions in detail with structured learning objectives and CEU credit.
Conflict management for behavior analysts — Ellie Kazemi · 1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $19.99
Take This Course →We extended this decision guide with research from our library — dig into the peer-reviewed studies behind each approach, in plain-English summaries written for BCBAs.
280 research articles with practitioner takeaways
258 research articles with practitioner takeaways
233 research articles with practitioner takeaways
1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $19.99 · BehaviorLive
Research-backed educational guide
Research-backed answers for behavior analysts
You earn CEUs from a dozen different places. Upload any certificate — from here, your employer, conferences, wherever — and always know exactly where you stand. Learning, Ethics, Supervision, all handled.
No credit card required. Cancel anytime.
All behavior-analytic intervention is individualized. The information on this page is for educational purposes and does not constitute clinical advice. Treatment decisions should be informed by the best available published research, individualized assessment, and obtained with the informed consent of the client or their legal guardian. Behavior analysts are responsible for practicing within the boundaries of their competence and adhering to the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts.