underescalation

Underescalation is the failure to sufficiently reduce tensions or violence in a confrontational situation, resulting in a more dangerous or prolonged outcome than necessary. It occurs when parties do not adequately soften positions, delay negotiation, or neglect available nonviolent options, allowing risk and hostility to persist or intensify.

The concept is discussed across several domains. In policing, underescalation refers to not employing time, distance, communication, or other de‑escalation techniques, which can lead to the use of force or adverse outcomes. In diplomacy and international relations, it can mean delaying or avoiding signals of willingness to negotiate, or failing to manage a crisis at a lower level before it escalates. In organizational and interpersonal conflicts, underescalation manifests as persistent hostility, poor communication, or inadequate conflict management, hindering resolution.

Causes include time pressure, fear of appearing indecisive or weak, training gaps in de‑escalation skills, organizational or cultural incentives that favor firmness, miscommunication, hostile attributions, and faulty risk assessments. Structural constraints, such as rules of engagement, bureaucratic bottlenecks, or incentives to escalate for deterrence, can also contribute.

Consequences of underescalation can be higher injury or collateral damage, loss of trust and legitimacy, longer conflicts, and missed opportunities for peaceful settlement. To mitigate it, strategies emphasize structured escalation protocols, ongoing de‑escalation training, clear signaling of intent, time‑outs or negotiation pauses, and the involvement of neutral mediators or third‑party observers to prevent inadvertent slips into violence. Some critics caution that excessive de‑escalation can signal weakness in certain contexts; thus, balanced, context‑appropriate approaches are recommended.