Mugny and his colleagues have shown that conflict is sometimes detrimental for learning, but other times beneficial, depending on how it is regulated. Yet, it is assumed that laypeople perceive conflict as uniformly negative. We argue that the valence of these lay perceptions depends on the mode of conflict regulation. Epistemic and relational protective conflict regulation behaviors (integrative and submissive response, respectively) can be described as more focused on the other than relational competitive conflict regulation (self-confirmatory response); thus, they should be perceived as more socially desirable. Moreover, epistemic and competitive regulations can be described as more focused on the self than protective regulation; thus, they should be perceived as more socially useful. First-year psychology students (N = 119) participants evaluated three bogus respondents allegedly regulating conflict in an epistemic, competitive, or protective manner. Results supported both hypotheses, suggesting that conflict is not to be avoided per se and can be positively valued as a function of its regulation.