AVOIDANCE IS DEFINED AS THAT PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR IN A DISPUTE THAT INTENDS TO DIMINISH OR TERMINATE AN EXISTING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OTHER PARTY IN THE DISPUTE. THE DISTINCTION IS NOTED BETWEEN COSTS ABSORBED BY PARTIES WHO INITIATE THE AVOIDANCE-BEHAVIOR (INTERNAL) AND COSTS OF THIS AVOIDANCE BORNE BY OTHERS, EITHER THE OPPOSING DISPUTANT AND HIS ALLIES OR STRANGERS TO THE DISPUTE (EXTERNAL). PSYCHOLOGICAL COSTS IN AVOIDANCE-BEHAVIOR, THE LEAST EXPLORED BY RESEARCH, ARE CONSIDERED TO BE THE DIRECT LOSS OF WHATEVER EMOTIONAL VALUES RESIDED IN THE RELATIONSHIP, DISPLACEMENT OF HOSTILITIES ENGENDERED TOWARD THE OTHER PARTY, AND GUILT FEELINGS ARISING FROM ANY VIOLATION OF NORMS RESULTING FROM AVOIDANCE. A COMPARISON OF THE AMERICAN CULTURAL CONTEXT FOR AVOIDANCE WITH THAT OF OTHER SOCIETIES INDICATES THAT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL COSTS OF AVOIDANCE FOR AMERICANS TEND TO BE LESS THAN FOR THOSE IN OTHER CULTURES. PROBABLY, THIS IS WHY AMERICANS MEDIATE AND ADJUDICATE INTERPERSONAL DISPUTES AS ALTERNATIVES TO AVOIDANCE TO A LESS DEGREE THAN DO OTHER CULTURES. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE AUTHOR'S ANALYSIS OF AVOIDANCE AND ITS COSTS AND THAT USED IN A STUDY BY DANZIG AND LOWY ARE DISCUSSED. ESSENTIALLY, THE DIFFERENCES LIE IN THE AUTHOR'S PRINCIPAL CONCERN TO FOCUS ON THE PSYCHOSOCIAL ORIGINS OF AVOIDANCE, TENDING TO CONCENTRATE ON INTERNAL COSTS OF AVOIDANCE; DANZIG AND LOWY ARE BELIEVED TO BE PRIMARILY INTERESTED IN THE REFORM OF DISPUTE BEHAVIOR, WHICH REQUIRES FOCUSING ON EXTERNAL COSTS. DANZIG AND LOWY PROPOSE NEIGHBORHOOD MEDIATION IN URBAN SITUATIONS TO HANDLE MANY DISPUTES THAT ARISE. THE AUTHOR INDICATES THAT DISPUTES CONCERNING VALUES AND PERCEPTIONS OF REALITY DERIVED FROM CONDITIONED VALUES ARE NOT LIKELY TO BE RESOLVED THROUGH NEIGHBORHOOD MEDIATION, WHILE CONFLICTS ABOUT MONEY OR PROPERTY WOULD BE MORE AMENABLE TO MEDIATION. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED.