By Elenne Ford

When people find themselves locked in conflict, the usual advice is to stand firm and assert their position, interests and rights. Self-assertion dominates our cultural playbook. The titles of popular conflict resolution books give the flavour succinctly: Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In;¹ I Wanted Fries with That: How to Ask for What You Want and Get What You Need;² Your Perfect Right: Assertiveness and Equality in Your Life and Relationships.³ Yet in many situations, insisting on one’s way only deepens wounds, escalates hostility, and pushes relationships into deadlock.

Alongside this dominant self-assertion pathway, mediation practice sometimes relies on a different cluster of actions and behaviours. Rather than demanding rights or ‘repayment’ for wrongs, parties make concessions, offer conciliatory gestures, apologise, or forgive—sometimes as strategic compromises, but at other times in ways that involve voluntarily bearing a meaningful personal cost.

These voluntary and costly moves, when they involve the relinquishing of something deeply valued or rightfully held, are not standard objects of analytic focus within negotiation theory. Rarely have they been grouped together and analysed as a distinct category with their own  logic and relational impact. While concessions are a routine feature of mediation, here the term self-sacrifice is used to refer to a narrower class of actions involving the voluntary relinquishing of something meaningfully valued or rightfully held at a cost to the self without expectation of reciprocal gain.

Understood as forms of self-sacrifice when they involve such cost, these actions require giving up something meaningfully connected to the self for the sake of another or the relationship in response to conflict. While seldom named as self-sacrifice or analysed as such in mainstream conflict-resolution theory, self-sacrificial actions quietly operate in everyday life—and, I suggest, within mediation practice—where they may help restore trust, soften hostility, and open pathways toward reconciliation that may otherwise remain inaccessible.

Mediation theory has largely noticed the moves—concessions, apologies, forgiveness, and other costly actions—but has paid less attention to the deeper work some of those moves can perform—the voluntary absorption of cost, the relinquishing of rightful claims, and the re-ordering of relations between parties.

Self-Assertion vs. Self-Sacrifice

Self-assertion is widely understood as a personal right—the act of standing up for one’s interests or opinions. In moderation, it can be healthy and necessary. But when used indiscriminately, especially in high-stakes disputes, it often backfires, triggering retaliation, escalating emotions, and entrenching divisions.⁴

By contrast, self-sacrifice is commonly defined as the giving up of one’s interests, or wellbeing to help others or advance a cause.⁵ It might sound extreme, yet even modest sacrifices—conceding a point that matters deeply, offering an apology, or forgiving an offence—when voluntary and appropriate to the relational context can alter the dynamics and relational fabric of a conflict.⁶ In contrast to the prominence of self-assertion, however, self-sacrifice rarely appears as an articulated option in a mediator’s conflict resolution toolkit.

Accordingly, my research asks: What is the relationship between self-sacrifice of parties in the mediation of seemingly intractable interpersonal conflict and potential pathways for resolution of such conflict?

Sorokin’s Five Dimensions of Creative Altruism

To explore this question, I draw on the work of sociologist Pitirim Sorokin (1889–1968), who described five dimensions of ‘creative altruism’:⁷ intensity, purity, adequacy, duration, and extensity. Among these, intensity—how costly an action is to the self—relates most directly to self-sacrifice. It captures acts that impose real loss or risk on the giver, such as apology, forgiveness, surrendering rightful claims.

Rather than abstract virtues, such costly gestures may form part of the often-invisible infrastructure through which reconciliation becomes possible in mediation.

Transactional and Relational Mechanisms

Self-sacrifice may operate through two broad mechanisms:

1. Transactional Mechanism

Conflict often produces a relational deficit—a sense that something is owed. This debt can be ‘collected’ through self-assertion or ‘absorbed’ through self-sacrifice.⁸ To forgive, apologise, or concede is to bear the cost oneself, thereby discharging the debt.⁹

2. Relational Mechanisms

Beyond the act itself, self-sacrifice can set relational dynamics in motion. These may include trust activation, triggered reciprocity, empathy arousal, re-interpretation of the other, and a cooperative orientation—each of which can reshape how parties engage with one another.¹⁰

Together, these mechanisms may help explain why costly gestures sometimes succeed where negotiation stalemates persist.

Why Cost Matters

Across disciplines, scholars suggest that costliness matters. An apology is often perceived as more credible when it carries risk or vulnerability; a conciliatory gesture more persuasive when it involves sacrifice. As conflict scholar Christopher Mitchell¹¹ observed ‘The greater the sacrifice involved, the more likely it will be evaluated as a credible change.’

Costliness, however, is not determined solely by the scale of an action. Even small sacrifices may carry significant personal or relational cost to the person making them. Offering patience when irritated, extending kindness when resentful, or taking the first step toward reconciliation all involve relinquishing pride, comfort, or control. Such acts can initiate meaningful relational shifts.

Ambiguity and Risk

Self-sacrifice is not without danger. It may be ignored, resisted or exploited, and can harm the giver if it reinforces unhealthy dynamics. Sorokin’s adequacy dimension captures this ambiguity by asking whether an act of sacrifice actually produces constructive outcomes.

Conclusion

Intractable conflict often appears irresolvable because parties are locked in cycles of self-assertion. Yet interdisciplinary research suggests another possibility worth examining: self-sacrifice as a distinct but under-theorised pathway. By absorbing costs rather than demanding repayment, parties may alter the dynamics and relational balance of conflict.

In mediation, this does not mean encouraging people to become doormats. Rather, it raises the possibility that costly, appropriate, voluntary acts—risky, and often counter-cultural—may function as meaningful interventions. Because self-sacrifice remains underexplored in conflict resolution scholarship, it warrants closer attention. My research seeks to analyse whether and how such actions shape pathways towards resolution, through fieldwork with mediators and parties to conflict.

Author Biography

Elenne Ford is a dispute resolution consultant with a long-standing background in law and mediation. Elenne brings a sustained commitment to transforming conflict into pathways for connection and growth. Elenne’s professional experience spans several decades as a barrister and mediator, complemented by ongoing study in counselling and peacemaking. Elenne is currently undertaking a PhD at the University of Queensland, examining intractable interpersonal conflict and the role of self-sacrifice in mediation, with a particular focus on how relational repair may be enabled through voluntary, redemptive self-giving. Grounded in a relational understanding of human wellbeing, Elenne’s research and practice centre on fostering constructive, relationally attuned responses to conflict.

---

References

1. Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without
   giving in (3rd , updated and revised ed.). Penguin. ↩︎
2. Fish, A. (2020). I Wanted Fries with That: How to Ask for What You Want and Get What
   You Need. ↩︎
3. Alberti, R., & Emmons, M. (2017). Your Perfect Right: Assertiveness and Equality in Your
   Life and Relationships. ↩︎
4. Pruitt, D. G., & Nowak, A. (2014). Attractor landscapes and reaction functions in escalation and de-escalation. The    International journal of conflict management, 25(4), p388. Hargie, O. (2021). Skilled Interpersonal Communication : Research, Theory and Practice. Taylor & Francis Group p339,340. ↩︎
5. Axinn, S. (2010). Sacrifice and Value: A Kantian Interpretation (1 ed.). Lexington Books/Fortress Academic. P3,5. Bahr, H. M., & Bahr, K. S. (2001). Families and Self-Sacrifice: Alternative Models and Meanings for Family Theory. Social Forces, 79(4), 1232; Rosati, C. S. (2009). Self-Interest and Self-Sacrifice. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, p324; ↩︎
6. Molander, P. (1985). The Optimal Level of Generosity in a Selfish, Uncertain Environment. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 29(4), 612,613,617. Cloke, K. (2001). Mediating Dangerously: the frontiers of conflict resolution. Wiley/Jossey-Bass p90. Barkat, J. S. (2019). Reaching for ripeness: promoting negotiation through unilateral conciliatory action. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 30(2), 184 ↩︎
7. Sorokin, P. A., & Post, S. G. (2002). The Ways and Power of Love : types, factors, and techniques of moral transformation:pbk (Timeless classic paperback ed.). Templeton Foundation Press. ↩︎
8. Keller, T. (2022). Forgive: Why Should I and How Can I? (1 ed.). Penguin Publishing Group p59 ↩︎
9. Keller, T. (2022). Forgive: Why Should I and How Can I? (1 ed.). Penguin Publishing Group p209,210 ↩︎
10. Coleman, P., & Deutsch, M. (2015). Morton Deutsch: a pioneer in developing peace psychology. Springer (Vol 30) pp. 24, 50,51); Van Lange, P. A. M., & Righetti, F. (2009). Willingness to Sacrifice. In H. T. Reis, &, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Human Relationships. Thousand Oaks Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. p. 1690; Barkat, J. S. (2019). Reaching for ripeness: promoting negotiation through unilateral conciliatory action. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 30(2), p. 181,184; Schumann, K., & Dragotta, A. (2021). Empathy as a predictor of high‐quality interpersonal apologies. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(6), p906 ↩︎
11. Mitchell, C. R. (2000). Gestures of Conciliation : factors contributing to successful olive branches. Macmillan. p157 ↩︎