Whether teachers desire it or not, conflicts among students inevitably will occur in any classroom. The purpose of this article is to present evidence that intellectual conflict is not only highly desirable but also an essential instructional tool that energizes student efforts to learn. In doing so, it is necessary to summarize the conflicting views about conflict, define constructive controversy, describe how it is used in academic situations, summarize its underlying theory, and review the research demonstrating its effectiveness.

Among programs promoting intellectual conflict, constructive controversy ( Johnson & Johnson, 2007 ) may be the most closely based on theory and may be the most extensively evaluated. We will use constructive controversy as an example to make the case that intellectual conflict is a powerful and essential aspect of instruction and learning. In the following sections, constructive controversy will be defined, the instructional procedure will be described, the underlying theory will be discussed, and the empirical evidence supporting its effectiveness will be summarized.

If we are to make the case that intellectual conflict can be used to enhance student learning and development, there must be operational procedures that guide instructors in its use and empirical evidence documenting the effectiveness of the procedures. A number of instructional procedures are recommended for promoting intellectual conflict. Oliver and Shaver (1966/1996) have recommended a jurisprudential procedure in which instructors present a controversial issue and conduct a dialogue with students emphasizing justification, clarification, and evidence. Procedures based on dialectical systems are used to create cognitive conflict by requiring students to witness a “debate” between at least two positions ( Churchman, 1971 ; Earle, 1973 ; Paul, 1984 ). Dialectical procedures are based on the assumptions that (a) individuals, because of their differing areas of expertise, value systems, and perspectives, will make different inferences from the same data; and (b) when viewing two interpretations of the same information, students will become involved in resolving the conflicting interpretations. Unfortunately, few empirical studies document the benefits of jurisprudential and dialectical procedures. Any instructional procedure emphasizing inquiry, problem-based learning, and problem solving may result in cognitive conflict, but few instructional procedures emphasize the creation of intellectual conflict. There is growing interest in argumentation and debate as instructional procedures ( Huber & Snider, 2005 ). Many conflict resolution programs focus on conflict of interests and emphasize negotiation, mediation, restitution, and reconciliation ( Johnson & Johnson, 2005a ). These programs typically are separate from the academic program.

In discussing whether conflicts are to be encouraged or discouraged, it is necessary to understand the nature of conflict. A conflict exists whenever incompatible activities occur ( Deutsch, 1973 ). An activity that is incompatible with another activity is one that prevents, blocks, or interferes with the occurrence or effectiveness of the other activity. At least four types of conflicts are important for schools: (a) controversy, which occurs when one person’s ideas, information, conclusions, theories, and opinions are incompatible with those of another and the two seek to reach an agreement; (b) conceptual conflict, which occurs when incompatible ideas exist simultaneously in a person’s mind or when information being received does not seem consistent with what one already knows; (c) conflict of interests, which occurs when the actions of one person attempting to reach his or her goals prevent, block, or interfere with the actions of another person attempting to reach his or her goals; and (d) developmental conflict, which occurs when recurrent incompatible activities between adult and child, based on the opposing forces of stability and change within the child, cycle in and out of peak intensity as the child develops cognitively and socially ( Johnson & Johnson, 2005a ). Intellectual conflict typically involves constructive controversy and conceptual conflict.

Conflict is to student learning what the internal combustion engine is to the automobile. The internal combustion engine ignites the fuel and the air with a spark to create the energy for movement and acceleration. Just as the fuel and the air are inert without the spark, so, ideas in the classroom are inert without the spark of intellectual conflict. Intellectual conflict is the spark that energizes students to seek out new information and study harder and longer ( Johnson, Johnson, & Johnson, 1976 ; Johnson & Johnson, 2007 ; please note that all references to “Johnson & Johnson” refer to D. W. Johnson and R. Johnson unless otherwise indicated.). By structuring intellectual conflict in a lesson, instructors can grab and hold students’ attention and energize students to learn at a level beyond what they may have intended. More specifically, intellectual conflict has the potential to accomplish the following:

Controversial subject matter is curriculum content on which members of the community have not found consensus and which is considered to be significant enough that there is opposition to using the curriculum materials or covering the topic ( Johnson & Johnson, 2007 ). It varies from school to school and community to community. Any subject matter issue or topic has the potential to become controversial at some time or place. However, constructive controversy is a procedure for learning, not for addressing controversial issues or controversial subject matter.

Instructors and schools may grapple with controversial issues and controversial subject matter; however, these are not constructive controversy, although the constructive controversy procedure may be useful in discussing them. Controversial issues are those on which society has not found consensus and which are considered so significant that each proposed way of dealing with them has ardent supporters and adamant opponents ( Johnson & Johnson, 2007 ). Controversial issues, by nature, arouse protest from some individual or group because any position taken will be opposed by those who favor another position. The protest may result from a feeling that a cherished belief, an economic interest, or a basic principle is threatened. In contrast, constructive controversy is aimed primarily at learning rather than at resolving political issues within a community.

Debate occurs when two or more individuals argue positions that are incompatible and a judge declares a winner on the basis of who presented his or her position the best ( Johnson & Johnson, 2007 ). An example of debate is when each member of a group is assigned a position on whether more or less regulation is needed to manage hazardous wastes and an authority declares as the winner the group member who makes the best presentation.

Concurrence seeking occurs when members of a group emphasize agreement, inhibit discussion to avoid any disagreement or argument, and avoid realistic appraisal of alternative ideas and courses of action ( Johnson & Johnson, 2007 ). Concurrence seeking is close to Janis’s (1982) concept of groupthink, which arises when members of a decision-making group set aside their doubts and misgivings about whatever policy is favored by the emerging consensus so as to be able to concur with the other members. The underlying motivation of groupthink is the strong desire to preserve the harmonious atmosphere of the group, on which each member has become dependent for coping with the stresses of external crises and for maintaining self-esteem ( Janis, 1982 ).

Constructive controversy exists when one person’s ideas, information, conclusions, theories, and opinions are incompatible with those of another and the two seek to reach an agreement ( Johnson & Johnson, 2007 ). Constructive controversies involve what Aristotle called deliberate discourse (the discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of proposed actions) aimed at synthesizing novel solutions (i.e., creative problem solving; see Table 1 and Figure 1 ). Related to controversy is cognitive conflict, which occurs when incompatible ideas exist simultaneously in a person’s mind or when information being received does not seem consistent with what one already knows ( Johnson & Johnson, 2007 ). Constructive controversy is most commonly contrasted with concurrence seeking, debate, and individualistic efforts.

This procedure, which has been implemented in classes in numerous parts of the world, is derived from a theory validated by considerable research ( Johnson & Johnson, 2007 ). The theory and its limiting conditions will first be discussed. The research will then be discussed.

Students drop all advocacy and strive to find a synthesis to which they can all agree. They summarize the best evidence and reasoning from both sides and integrate them into a joint position that is new and unique. Students write a group report on the synthesis including the supporting evidence and rationale, individually take a test on both positions, process how well the group functioned, and celebrate the group’s success and the hard work of each member.

Students reverse perspectives and present the best case possible for the opposing position. In presenting the opposing position sincerely and forcefully, students may use their notes and add new facts. Students should strive to see the issue from both perspectives simultaneously.

Students engage in an open discussion of the issue. They freely exchange information and ideas while arguing forcefully and persuasively for their position (presenting as many facts as they can to support it) and engaging in spirited disagreement. They critically analyze the opposing position (its evidence and reasoning), ask for data to support assertions, and refute the opposing position by pointing out the inadequacies in the information and reasoning. While doing so, students thoroughly learn the opposing position and give it a “trial by fire” as they follow the rules for constructive controversy. Finally, students rebut attacks on their position. The instructor may take sides to encourage more spirited arguing, play devil’s advocate, ask one group to observe another group engaging in a spirited argument, and generally stir up the discussion.

Students present the best case for their assigned position to ensure that it receives a fair and complete hearing. They strive to be forceful, persuasive, and convincing advocates, ideally using more than one medium. They listen carefully to and learn the opposing position, clarifying anything they do not understand.

Each pair prepares the best case possible for its assigned position by (a) researching the assigned position and learning all relevant information; (b) organizing the information into a persuasive argument that contains a thesis, assertion, or claim (“Civil disobedience is a constructive necessity to maintain the integrity and fidelity of a democracy”), a rationale supporting the thesis (“Civil disobedience provides a, b, and c ”), and a logical conclusion that is the same as the thesis (“Therefore, civil disobedience is a constructive necessity to maintain the integrity and fidelity of a democracy”); and (c) planning how to advocate effectively for the assigned position to ensure that it receives a fair and complete hearing.

A U.S. history instructor is presenting a unit on civil disobedience. The instructor notes that in numerous instances, such as in the civil rights and antiwar movements in the United States, individuals have wrestled with the issue of breaking the law to redress a social injustice. In the civil rights movement individuals broke the law to gain equal rights for minorities. In the past few years, however, prominent public figures have felt justified in breaking laws for personal or political gain. The teacher asks, “Is civil disobedience in a democracy constructive or destructive?” Students are placed in groups of four and given the assignments of writing a report and passing a test on the role of civil disobedience in a democracy. Each group is divided into two pairs. One pair is instructed to develop and advocate the best case possible for the constructiveness of civil disobedience in a democracy; the other pair is instructed to develop and advocate the best case possible for the destructiveness of civil disobedience in a democracy. The overall group goal is for students to reach consensus as to the role of civil disobedience in a democracy. To develop their positions, students draw from sources such as the Declaration of Independence, written primarily by Thomas Jefferson; Civil Disobedience, by Henry David Thoreau; Speech at Cooper Union, New York, by Abraham Lincoln; and Letter From Birmingham Jail, by Martin Luther King Jr. The students are to learn the information relevant to the issue being studied and ensure that all other group members learn the information, so that (a) their group can write a high-quality report on the issue, and (b) all group members can achieve high scores on the test. Students proceed through the following steps of constructive controversy.

Have you learned lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you? Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed the passage with you?

This process contrasts with concurrence seeking, debate, and individualistic efforts. The process of concurrence seeking is a combination of cooperation and avoidance of conflict. Two sides prepare their positions, present the best case possible, experience uncertainty once they realize there is disagreement, become apprehensive about the disagreement, and seek to avoid and suppress the conflict by finding a compromise position that ends disagreement immediately. The process of debate is based on competition. Two sides prepare their positions, present the best case possible, listen carefully to the opposing position, attempt to refute it, rebut the opponent’s attempts to refute their position, and wait for the judges to declare the winner. Although the process of debate begins the same as the process of controversy, the uncertainty created by being challenged results in a closed-minded, defensive rejection of other points of view and dissonant information ( Tjosvold & Johnson, 1978 ). Individuals thus stay committed to their original positions. Because the debate requires refutation of other points of view, however, individuals do learn opposing information. In individualistic efforts, individuals study both sides of the issue but make no oral statements; their initial conclusions are not challenged, and they are free to confirm what they initially thought ( Johnson et al., 2008 ).

The process may begin again at this point, or it may be terminated by a freezing of the current conclusion and resolution of any dissonance by increasing confidence in the validity of that conclusion.

By adapting their cognitive perspectives and reasoning through understanding and accommodating the perspectives and reasoning of others, individuals tend to derive a new, reconceptualized, and reorganized conclusion. Novel solutions and decisions that, on balance, are qualitatively better tend to be detected.

Uncertainty, conceptual conflict, or disequilibrium tends to motivate epistemic curiosity. The result is an active search for (a) more information and new experiences (increased specific content) and (b) a more adequate cognitive perspective and reasoning process (increased validity) in the hope of resolving the uncertainty.

When individuals are confronted with different conclusions based on other people’s information, experiences, and perspectives, they tend to become uncertain as to the correctness of their own conclusion, and a state of conceptual conflict or disequilibrium is aroused. They unfreeze their epistemic process.

When individuals are presented with a problem or decision, they form an initial conclusion based on categorizing and organizing their current (but usually limited) information, experience, and perspectives. They tend to have a high degree of confidence in their initial conclusion (they freeze the epistemic process).

The likelihood that a controversy will have positive outcomes tends to increase as the active involvement of all participants increases. Controversy, therefore, may not result in beneficial outcomes when one or more persons

In constructive controversy, group members are encouraged to follow the canons of rational argumentation ( Johnson & Johnson, 2007 ). Rational argumentation begins when each side constructs its pro and con arguments. An argument consists of an assertion or claim, a rationale, and a conclusion that reiterates the thesis. Constructing an argument includes generating ideas, collecting relevant information, organizing the information through inductive and deductive logic, and making tentative conclusions based on one’s current understanding. One’s position is then presented to a person holding the opposite point of view. A dialogue follows. Engaging in intellectual arguments is like dancing with the opponent. Each move creates a countermove. Person 1 can make an assertion or claim, and Person 2 can respond with a concession, a request for justification (reasons that the assertion or claim is true), or a refutation (a challenge to the validity of the information and logic contained in the assertion). If asked for justification, Person 1 responds with empirical evidence or an explanation. Empirical evidence tends to be the strongest form of justification because it ties the assertion to actual events. Plausible explanations of how a cause is connected to an effect are useful when empirical evidence is lacking (explanations are often stories or examples illustrating how a cause and effect are linked). If confronted with a refutation, Person 1 can respond with a rebuttal delineating the validity of his or her information and logic and the flaws in Person 2’s refutation. Rational argumentation requires that participants keep an open mind, changing their conclusions and positions when others are persuasive and convincing in their presentation of rationale, evidence, and logical reasoning. In other words, participants engage in open-minded inquiry characterized by rational argumentation and focused on creating a synthesis that incorporates the best reasoned judgments of everyone involved.

A third set of skills involves the cycle of differentiation of positions and their integration ( D. W. Johnson & F. Johnson, 2009 ). Group members should ensure that there are several cycles of differentiation (bringing out differences in positions) and integration (combining several positions into one new, creative position). The potential for integration is never greater than the adequacy of the differentiation already achieved. Premature integration tends to result in poor decisions ( Janis, 1982 ). Controversies often go through a series of differentiations and integrations before reaching a final decision ( Johnson & Johnson, 2007 ).

One of the most important skills of the group is to be able to disagree with each other’s ideas while confirming each other’s personal competence ( Tjosvold, 1998 ). Disagreeing with others and, at the same time, imputing incompetence to them, tends to increase their commitment to their own ideas and their rejection of the opponent’s information and reasoning. Disagreeing with others while simultaneously confirming their personal competence, however, results in being better liked and receiving less criticism of one’s own ideas; opponents become more interested in learning about one’s ideas and more willing to incorporate one’s information and reasoning into their own analysis of the problem. The participants are more likely to believe that their goals are cooperative, to integrate their perspectives, and to reach agreement ( Tjosvold, 1998 ).

Follow the golden rule of conflict: I act toward opponents as I would have them act toward me. I want the opposing pair to listen to me, so I listen to them. I want the opposing pair to include my ideas in their thinking, so I include their ideas in my thinking. I want the opposing pair to see the issue from my perspective, so I take their perspective.

Differentiate before I try to integrate. First, I bring out all ideas and facts supporting both sides and clarify how the positions differ. Then, I try to identify points of agreement and put them together in a way that makes sense.

Be critical of ideas, not people. I challenge and refute the ideas of the other participants while confirming their competence and value as individuals. I do not indicate that I personally reject them.

For controversies to be managed constructively, participants need interpersonal and small group skills ( Johnson, 2009 ; D. W. Johnson & F. Johnson, 2009 ). Even in carefully structured cooperative situations, there may still be competitive elements involving leadership and dominance (e.g., demonstrating superior power, intellect, or competence). Seeking superiority can come at the cost of achievement and group success. Competitive goals may be reflected in lack of politeness or skill when participants express disagreement ( Chiu & Khoo, 2003 ). Impolite disagreement has pronounced negative influences on relationships, achievement, and group success. Although cooperative goals need to be compelling enough that concerns about leadership and dominance become nonexistent or secondary, participants still need to disagree and challenge each other with considerable skill. In an effort to adhere to and internalize the norms of skilled disagreement, participants should direct themselves as follows:

In a cooperative context, constructive controversy tends to result in open-mined inquiry that leads to refined conclusions ( Johnson & Johnson, 2007 ). Constructive controversy in a cooperative context tends to induce feelings of comfort, pleasure, and helpfulness in discussing opposing positions, an open-minded listening to the opposing positions, motivation to hear more about the opponent’s arguments, more accurate understanding of the opponent’s position, and the reaching of more integrated positions where the opposing conclusions and reasoning are synthesized into a final position ( Johnson & Johnson, 2007 ; Tjosvold, 1998 ). These patterns of interaction, in turn, promote social support and safety, creativity, performance, and higher quality solutions to which participants are highly committed ( Tjosvold, 1998 ). In cooperative situations, distributed knowledge and different perspectives tend to be viewed as complementary and interdependent, which, in turn, increases accurate perspective taking, reduces competence threat, and focuses participants’ attention on coordinating different points of view to enhance the cooperative effort, all of which tends to enhance learning and productivity ( Butera, Huguet, Mugny, & Prez, 1994 ; Butera, Mugny, & Buchs, 2001 ; Gruber, 2006 ).

Although controversies can operate in a beneficial way, they will not do so under all conditions. Whether controversy has positive or negative consequences depends largely on the conditions under which it occurs. These conditions include the context within which the controversy takes place, the heterogeneity of participants, the distribution of information among group members, the level of group members’ social skills, group members’ ability to engage in rational argument, and the active involvement of all participants ( Johnson & Johnson, 1979 , 1989 , 2007 ).

Empirical Evidence

General Characteristics of Constructive Controversy Research The research on constructive controversy has been conducted primarily in the past 40 years by numerous researchers in a variety of settings using many different participant populations and many different tasks in both lab-experimental and field-experimental formats (see Table 2). In 82% of the studies, participants were randomly assigned to conditions. All but two of the studies were published in journals. Participants ranged from first-grade students to adults. The duration of the studies ranged from 1 to more than 20 sessions. Taken together, the results have considerable validity and generalizability. Weighted effect sizes were computed for the 39 studies (i.e., using Hedges unbiased estimator gU weighted by the inverse of its variance) included in the analyses (see Table 3).

Cognitive and Moral Reasoning Cognitive development theorists such as Piaget (1950), Flavell (1968), and Kohlberg (1969) have posited that it is repeated interpersonal controversies in which individuals are forced again and again to take cognizance of the perspectives of others that promote cognitive and moral development, the ability to think logically, and the reduction of egocentric reasoning. They posit that such interpersonal arguments create disequilibrium within individuals’ cognitive structures, which motivates a search for a more adequate and mature process of reasoning. The reasoning of these theorists follows from Darwin’s (1874/1981) position that ethical reasoning, once begun, pushes against initially limited ethical frameworks, always leading individuals toward a more universal point of view. The impact of controversy on cognitive and moral reasoning has been found in groups of various sizes and among markedly diverse student populations. Students who have participated in academic controversies progress to using higher level reasoning and metacognitive thought more frequently than do students participating in concurrence seeking (ES = 0.84), debate (ES = 1.38), or individualistic efforts (ES = 1.10; see Table 3). Several studies have demonstrated that pairing a conserver with a nonconserver, giving the pair conservation problems to solve, and instructing them to argue until reaching agreement or stalemate resulted in the conserver’s answer prevailing in the great majority of trials and in the nonconserver’s learning how to conserve (Ames & Murray, 1982). Change tended to be unidirectional and nonreversible. Children who understood conservation did not adopt erroneous strategies, whereas nonconservers tended to advance toward a greater understanding of conservation. Walker (1983) found that students progressed in their stage of reasoning when confronted with reasons that opposed their own views and that were one stage ahead of their own reasoning. Students also progressed cognitively when confronted with counterarguments at the same stage of reasoning. Finally, even two immature children who argued erroneous positions about the answer tended to make modest but significant gains toward an understanding of conservation. The discussion of the task per se did not produce the effects. There had to be conflict among individuals’ explanations for the effects to appear. The same thing seems to happen with moral reasoning. A number of studies demonstrate that when participants are placed in a group with peers who use a higher stage of moral reasoning, and the group is required to make a decision as to how a moral dilemma should be resolved, advances in the students’ level of moral reasoning result (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). In a recent study, Tichy, Johnson, Johnson, and Roseth (in press) examined the impact of controversy compared with individualistic efforts on the four components of moral development (Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999). Although they did not find a consistent effect on moral sensitivity, controversy tended to produce significantly higher levels of moral motivation, moral judgment, and moral character, as well as a number of ethical skills.

Perspective Taking To discuss difficult issues, make joint reasoned judgments, and increase commitment to implement a decision, it is helpful to understand and consider all perspectives. Most students are usually unaware of their classmates’ alternative perspectives and frames of reference and of their potential effects on the accumulation and understanding of information and knowledge (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). Two students interpreting information using different perspectives can draw directly opposing conclusions without recognizing the limitations of their thinking. Students do not see the whole picture; they see only what their perspective allows them to see, and they tend to overestimate the validity of their conclusions. In addition, students are apt to process information in a biased manner, accepting confirming evidence at face value and subjecting disconfirming evidence to highly critical evaluation (Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979). To make reasoned judgments, students need to be able to view the issue from all relevant perspectives. Constructive controversy tends to promote more accurate and complete understanding of opposing perspectives than do concurrence seeking (ES = 0.97), debate (ES = 0.20), and individualistic efforts (ES = 0.59; see Table 3). Engaging in controversy tends to result in greater understanding of another person’s cognitive perspective than does avoiding controversy. In the studies reviewed, individuals who engaged in a controversy tended to be more accurate in subsequently predicting what line of reasoning their opponent would use in solving a future problem than were individuals who interacted without any controversy. Increased understanding of opposing perspectives tends to result from engaging in controversy (as opposed to engaging in concurrence-seeking discussions or individualistic efforts), regardless of whether one is a high-, medium-, or low-achieving student. Increased perspective taking tends to enhance individuals’ ability to discover beneficial agreements in conflicts (Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin, & White, 2008). Finally, when students make comments that transform, extend, or summarize the reasoning of another person, more effective moral discussions tend to occur (Berkowitz & Gibbs, 1983; Berkowitz, Gibbs, & Broughton, 1980).

Open-Mindedness Individuals participating in controversies in a cooperative context tend to be more open-minded in listening to the opposing position than do individuals participating in controversies in a competitive context (Tjosvold & Johnson, 1978). Tjosvold and Johnson note that when the context was competitive there was a closed-minded orientation in which participants felt comparatively unwilling to make concessions to the opponent’s viewpoint and closed-mindedly refused to incorporate any of that viewpoint into their own position. In a competitive context the increased understanding resulting from controversy tended to be ignored in favor of a defensive adherence to one’s own position (Tjosvold & Johnson, 1978).

Motivation to Improve Understanding Participants in a controversy tend to have more continuing motivation to learn about the issue and to come to the best reasoned judgment possible than do participants in concurrence seeking (ES = 0.68), debate (0.73), or individualistic efforts (ES = 0.65; see Table 3). Participants in a controversy tend to search for (a) more information and new experiences (increased specific content), and (b) a more adequate cognitive perspective and reasoning process (increased validity) in hopes of resolving the uncertainty. There is also an active interest in learning others’ positions and developing an understanding and appreciation of them. Lowry and Johnson (1981), for example, found that students involved in a controversy, as compared with students involved in concurrence seeking, read more library materials, reviewed more classroom materials, more frequently watched an optional movie shown during recess, and more frequently requested information from others.

Attitudes Toward Task If participants are to be committed to implementing the decision and participating in future decision making, they must consider the decision worth making. Individuals who engaged in controversies tended to like the decision-making task better than did individuals who engaged in concurrence-seeking discussions (ES = 0.35), debate (ES = 0.84), or individualistic efforts (ES = 0.72; see Table 3). The positive attitude toward the task resulting from controversy tended to enhance participants’ commitment to engage in the controversy procedure in the future.

Interpersonal Attraction Among Participants It is often assumed that the presence of conflict within a group will lead to difficulties in establishing good interpersonal relations and will promote negative attitudes toward fellow group members (Collins, 1970). Within controversy and debate there are elements of disagreement, argumentation, and rebuttal that could result in individuals’ disliking each other and could create difficulties in establishing good relationships. These elements seem, however, to have the opposite effect. Constructive controversy was found to promote greater liking among participants than did concurrence seeking (ES = 0.32), debate (ES = 0.67), or individualistic efforts (ES = 0.80; see Table 3). Debate tended to promote greater interpersonal attraction among participants than did individualistic efforts (ES = 0.46).

Social Support Constructive controversy tended to promote greater social support among participants than did concurrence seeking (ES = 0.50), debate (ES = 0.83), or individualistic effort (ES = 2.18; see Table 3). Debate tended to promote greater social support among participants than did individualistic efforts (ES = 0.85). Constructive controversy has been found to be significantly correlated with both task support and personal support (Tjosvold, XueHuang, Johnson, & Johnson, in press).

Self-Esteem Participation in future controversies may be enhanced when participants feel good about themselves as a result of being involved in the current controversy, whether or not they agree with it. Constructive controversy tended to promote higher self-esteem than did concurrence seeking (ES = 0.56), debate (ES = 0.58), or individualistic effort (ES = 0.85; see Table 3). Debate tended to promote higher self-esteem than did individualistic effort (ES = 0.45). Constructive controversy has been found to be significantly correlated with task self-esteem (Tjosvold et al., in press).

Psychological Health Predisposition to engage in constructive controversy has been found to be significantly positively correlated with life satisfaction and optimistic life orientation (Tjosvold et al., in press). In addition, controversy has been found to be significantly related to a sense of empowerment and to the values of egalitarianism and open-mindedness. These findings provide evidence that constructive controversy enhances participants’ psychological health.

Values Participating in the controversy process implicitly teaches values such as these: (a) Individuals have both the right and the responsibility to advocate for their conclusions, theories, and beliefs; (b) truth is derived from the clash of opposing ideas and positions; (c) insight and understanding come from a disputed passage where ideas and conclusions are advocated and subjected to intellectual challenge; (d) issues must be viewed from all perspectives; and (e) it is desirable to seek a synthesis that subsumes seemingly opposed positions (Johnson & Johnson, 2000, 2007). In addition, participating in the controversy process teaches hope and optimism about the future and a sense of empowerment; it also teaches a belief in the importance of egalitarianism, of keeping an open mind, of mutual respect and support, and of respect for organizational superiors (Tjosvold et al., in press).