Socio-cognitive conflict has been defined as a situation of confrontation with a disagreeing other. Previous research suggests that individuals can regulate conflict in a relational way, namely by focusing on social comparison between relative levels of competences. Relational conflict regulation has been described as yielding particularly negative effects on social interactions and learning, but has been understudied. The present research addresses the question of the origin of relational conflict regulation by introducing a fundamental distinction between two types of regulation, one based on the affirmation of one's own point of view and the invalidation of the other's (i.e., 'competitive' regulation), the other corresponding to the protection of self-competence via compliance (i.e., 'protective' regulation). Three studies show that these modes of relational conflict regulation result from the endorsement of distinct performance goals, respectively, performance-approach goals (trying to outperform others) and performance-avoidance goals (avoiding performing more poorly than others). Theoretical implications for the literature on both conflict regulation and achievement goals are discussed.