Acknowledgement: First published in the Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology,

Vol. 15(2), 1611!1, 1""5. # 1""5 Americ$n %s&chologic$l Associ$tion. 'eprinted b& permission
o( the $uthor.
How to Overcome without Fighting: An Introduction to The Taoist Approach to Conflict
Resolution b& )e& *un, +ep$rtment o( ,$w $nd -ustice, .entr$l /$shington 0ni1ersit&
Abstract
2his $rticle discusses the pertinence o( philosophic$l 2$oism to ps&chologic$l rese$rch b&
e3$mining the 2$oist ide$s $bout con(lict resolution in hum$n inter$ction. According to 2$oism,
the ultim$te go$ls o( people consist o( re$li4ing h$rmon& with one $nother $nd $chie1ing
conson$nce with n$ture. %eople c$n $tt$in interperson$l h$rmon& b& underst$nding the
signi(ic$nce o( 2$o $nd how hum$n beh$1ior is regul$ted b& the inter$ction o( three s&stems $t
the uni1ers$l, interperson$l, $nd intr$person$l le1els.
The significance of the issue
2$oism, $long with .on(uci$nism, is one o( the two m$5or n$ti1e philosophic$l tr$ditions th$t h$1e
sh$ped $nd perme$ted .hinese culture, $nd $ll Asi$n cultures $((ected b& .hin$ (e.g., -$p$n,
)ore$, $nd Vietn$m) (or more th$n 2,666 &e$rs. 7n $ddition to its pro(ound imp$ct on the 8$stern
sciences, medicine, liter$ture, $nd $rts, philosophic$l 2$oism h$s immensel& in(luenced people9s
underst$nding $bout interperson$l $ctions $nd perceptions.
*ome schol$rs in the /est h$1e e3plored the implic$tions o( 2$oism (or ps&chologic$l rese$rch.
For e3$mple, 2$oism h$s been construed $s $ work o( met$ph&sic$l ps&cholog&, deline$ting how
the (und$ment$l (orces o( the cosmos itsel( $re mirrored in our own indi1idu$l inner structure
(:eedlem$n, 1";"). 2here h$1e been some $ttempts to $ppl& 2$oist thought to ps&chother$p&
(8hrlich, 1";6), holistic ther$p& ()ell& < =cF$rl$ne, 1""1), $nd discussion o( the sel(
$ctu$li4$tion theories o( 'ogers $nd =$slow (.h$ng < %$ge, 1""1).
2he ps&chologic$l (in p$rticul$r the soci$l ps&chologic$l) rese$rch in the /est, howe1er, h$s p$id
little $ttention to 2$oist thought concerning soci$l inter$ctions $nd perceptions, which postul$tes
th$t one o( the two p$r$mount go$ls (or hum$n beings in1ol1es $chie1ing h$rmon& with one
$nother (in $ddition to $chie1ing conson$nce with n$ture) b& (ollowing 2$oist $3ioms. 2he
>uintessenti$l ide$s o( 2$oism c$n be reg$rded $s guidelines (or con(lict resolution in the two
t&pes o( rel$tionships.
2his p$per intends to e3plore the pertinence o( 2$oist ide$s to soci$l beh$1ior b& e3$mining three
issues: (1) the me$nings o( 2$o $nd 2e $nd the three s&stems th$t regul$te interperson$l $ctions
$nd perceptions, (2) the c$uses o( interperson$l con(licts, $nd (?) how to emplo& 2$oist non$ction
to ch$nge $ t$rget person9s $ctions or perceptions in $n interperson$l con(lict situ$tion.
The Taoist texts
2he prim$r& 2$oist ide$s discussed in this $rticle $re deri1ed (rom two m$in 2$oist te3ts: 2$o 2e
.hing $nd 2he Art o( /$r. 2he 2$o 2e .hing is t$ken $s $n $ccumul$ted wisdom through three
centuries (6th@th centuries A. ..) r$ther th$n the work o( ,$o 24u $lone (Bu, 1""1). Although 2he
Art o( /$r w$s written $bout 2,@66 &e$rs $go b& $ .hinese milit$r& philosopher, *un 24u, it h$s
become one o( the most highl& $ppreci$ted str$tegic te3ts in tod$&9s business world. 2he two
books $re linked in th$t 2$o 2e .hing c$n be 1iewed $s $ m$nuscript $ddressing hum$n beh$1ior
$t the met$ph&sic$l le1el, where$s the Art o( /$r m$& be percei1ed $s $ pr$ctic$l guidebook
de$ling with hum$n inter$ction (,i, 1";5). 7t should be noted, howe1er, onl& these two
philosophers9 ide$s $bout con(lict resolution $re e3$mined in this $rticle $nd it does not intend to
gi1e $ comprehensi1e re1iew o( $ll rel$ted 2$oist thoughts. For e3$mple, $lthough .hu$ng 24u9s
(?6"A.26;A.) te$ching w$s tr$dition$ll& tre$ted $s $ signi(ic$nt p$rt o( 2$oist liter$ture (=$ir,
1";?), the current discussion includes no el$bor$tions on .hu$ng 24u, bec$use some schol$rs
belie1e th$t his rumin$tion prim$ril& dwells on $bsolute spiritu$l (reedom $nd his 1isions $bout
hum$n inter$ction seem to digress (rom those o( ,$o 24u (see Bu, 1""1). 2he deb$te $bout the
simil$rities $nd di((erences between the two 2$oists is too complic$ted to $ddress in this ess$&.
The three sstems that regulate social interaction
2$oism 1iews soci$l $ctions $nd perceptions $s regul$ted b& the inter$ction o( three s&stems $t
the uni1ers$l, interperson$l, $nd intr$person$l le1els. 8$ch o( the s&stems consists o( $n opposite
$nd corresponding p$ir.
First, the oper$tion o( the highest s&stem in1ol1es the $ntithesis $nd h$rmon& between C2$oC $nd
C2e.C 2r$dition$ll&, most schol$rs 1iew the term C2$oC $s s&non&mous with the Cp$thC or the Cw$&,C
$nd de(ine the term C2eC $s C1irtueC or Cintegrit&.C 2his $uthor, howe1er, $rgues th$t the more
$ppropri$te me$ning o( 2$o is the C$ltern$ti1es,C which re(er to the etern$l, ultim$te re$lit& (,$o
24u, .h$p. 16 < 25), or $ll $ltern$ti1e rel$tions or p$tterns go1erning the oper$tion o( the
uni1erse $nd people9s inter$ction with n$ture $nd with one $nother.
2his no1el interpret$tion o( 2$o is pre(erred b& this $uthor (or three re$sons. 7t is conson$nt with
the term9s origin$l me$nings in .hinese l$ngu$ge. 7n $ddition to the Cp$thC or the Cw$&,C the term
2$o $lso connotes Cchoice(s),C Cconnection(s),C Cmethod(s),C $mong others. 2he new tr$nsl$tion
c$n embr$ce, r$ther th$n re5ect, the me$nings o( the other interpret$tions. 7n $ddition, like other
cl$ssi(ic$tor& nouns o( .hinese, C2$oC is both $ plur$l $nd $ singul$r noun (D$nsen, 1";?).
Furthermore, this tr$nsl$tion c$n better epitomi4e the pro(use 2$oist notions, which include two
intrinsic$ll& rel$ted themes. 2he (irst one is C'e1ers$l is the mo1ement o( 2$oC (,$o 24u, .h$p.
@6). For e3$mple, the de1elopment $nd tr$ns(orm$tion o( the uni1erse c$n be ch$r$cteri4ed $s
the two complement$r&, interdependent ph$ses o( Ein $nd E$ng, $ltern$ting in sp$ce $nd time.
2he other 2$oist centr$l ide$ m$int$ins th$t C/e$kness is the us$ge o( 2$oC (,$o 24u, .h$p. @6).
2he best embodiment o( this $3iom is w$ter. %eople m$& obt$in the cogni4$nce o( 2$o b&
contempl$ting w$ter. 2he highest good is like w$ter, not onl& bec$use w$ter is good $t bene(iting
the m&ri$d cre$tures, but $lso bec$use w$ter, which is nurturing, so(t, we$k $nd (le3ible, c$n
1$n>uish h$rd $nd strong obst$cles b& selecting $ltern$ti1es to re$ch its go$ls. As w$ter does not
compete, nobod& c$n compete with it (,$o 24u, .h$p. ; < !;).
2he term C2e,C on the other h$nd, m$& be best 1iewed $s the $w$reness o( 2$o or the $ltern$ti1e
rel$tions $nd $s the m$nners th$t $re congruous with the knowledge. 2he gre$test 2e is to (ollow
2$o (,$o 24u, .h$p. 21) both in the process o( perception $nd in the course o( inter$ction. /hen
people percei1e the world $nd others, the& should discern $ll $ltern$ti1es concerning $n entit&,
C)now the white, but keep the bl$ck,C Cknow honor, &et keep disgr$ceC (,$o 24u, .h$p. 2;). 2he
$ctions in hum$n inter$ction listed b& ,$o 24u $s e3empli(&ing 2e include be$ring &et not
possessing, working &et not t$king credit, le$ding &et not domin$ting, cre$ting without cl$iming,
$nd guiding without inter(ering (,$o 24u, .h$p. 16 < 51). 7n p$rticul$r, the supreme 2e in1ol1es
the comprehension o( how Cthe so(t $nd we$k surmount the h$rd $nd strongC (,$o 24u, .h$p. ?6)
$nd how impediments c$n be o1ercome through &ielding (,$o 24u, .h$p. 22).
7n other words, 2$o $nd 2e represent the ob5ecti1e $nd the sub5ecti1e dimensions o( the uni1erse,
respecti1el&. %eople who underst$nd $nd con(orm to 2$o possess 2e.
0nderst$nding the uni1ers$l s&stem h$s three implic$tions (or comprehending soci$l $ctions: (1)
81er&thing in the uni1erse, including people9s cognition $nd $ctions, is const$ntl& in1ol1ed in
ch$nging $nd de1elopment$l processes, inter$cting with one $nother. (2) +i((erent $ctions result
(rom the $ctor9s di((erent $mounts o( 2e, or the underst$nding o( the $ltern$ti1es in the situ$tion,
bec$use people9s choices o( $ctions or perceptions in the world $re (ettered b& their knowledge o(
2$o th$t regul$tes the n$ture $nd people. (?) An indi1idu$l c$n le$rn $nd de1elop 2e onl& when
he or she is e3posed to 2$o, bec$use onl& 2$o, which m$ni(ests $s more inclusi1e $nd $ltern$ti1e
w$&s o( percei1ing the sel(, others $nd situ$tions, c$n te$ch the person the me$nings o( 2e. An
indi1idu$l who intends to ch$nge others9 $ctions or perceptions must underst$nd 2$o, or
comprehend how 2$o oper$tes in the uni1erse, including $ll $ltern$ti1e ($ctors (soci$l, n$tur$l,
e3tern$l, ps&chologic$l, etc.) th$t inter$ct with the others, to obt$in re$l (reedom $nd conson$nce
in the inter$ction.
*econd, $n indi1idu$l9s $ctions $nd perceptions in $n interperson$l situ$tion $re $lso go1erned b&
the interperson$l s&stem, which consists o( the sel( $nd the other(s) who $re simil$r or dissimil$r
in (ollowing or de(&ing the 2$oist principles during $n inter$ction, C)nowing the others is wisdom,
knowing the sel( is enlightenmentC(,$o 24u, .h$p. ??).
2he 1$ri$ble Csimil$rit&C is cert$inl& not $ new concept in the /estern ps&chologic$l rese$rch. For
e3$mple, studies h$1e shown th$t simil$rities in demogr$phics, person$lit&, $ttitudes, 1$lues, or
belie(s $re $ssoci$ted with interperson$l $ttr$ction (e.g., A$rr&, 1"!6F A&rne, 1"!1). %ercei1ing
th$t $ person in need is simil$r to us (e.g., simil$r in dress, $ttitudes, n$tion$lit&, ethnicit&) c$n
$lso incre$ses our willingness to help (+o1idio, 1";@). 8>uit& theor& (e.g., /$lster, /$lster <
Aerscheid, 1"!;) m$int$ins th$t people $re most s$tis(ied with $ rel$tionship when the r$tio
between the bene(its deri1ed $nd contributions m$de is simil$r (or both p$rtners (simil$r inputs
$nd outcomes).
2he 2$oist concept o( simil$rit&, howe1er, suggests th$t the e3tent to which people $re simil$r or
dissimil$r in compl&ing with or spurning the 2$oist precepts will $((ect the t&pes o( rel$tionship
the& m$& h$1e. Aec$use one side9s interperson$l beh$1ior th$t is c$rried out tow$rd the other
depends upon the t$rget9s re$ctions to be re$li4ed, the continu$tion o( interperson$l inter$ctions
or con(licts relies on the p$rticip$nts9 1$lid$tion o( e$ch other9s $ctions or perceptions. According
to 2$oism, $ person in $ con(lict situ$tion m$& minimi4e the dissension b& using $ltern$ti1es th$t
c$n tr$nscend or in1$lid$te the perceptions or e3pect$tions o( the opponent who e3$cerb$tes the
situ$tion. For e3$mple, people should $ppl& c$lm to subdue the obstreperous (*un 24u, .h$p. !)
$nd utili4e stillness to o1ercome he$t (,$o 24u, .h$p. @5).
2he 2$oist thoughts suggest th$t there $re three possible rel$tions between two inter$cting
people. (1) /hen both sides underst$nd $nd (ollow 2$o in their inter$ctions, the& will engender $
h$rmonious rel$tionship, with mutu$l $ttr$ction $nd rew$rd, bec$use both 1$lid$te e$ch other9s
2$o(ollowing $ctions. (2) /hen both sides de1i$te (rom 2$o $nd use simil$r methods in their
perception $nd inter$ction (i.e., both l$ck $ltern$ti1esF both 1iew power, (orce, or 1iolence $s most
e((ecti1e in sol1ing con(licts), the& $lso 1$lid$te e$ch other9s 1iol$tions. 7nterperson$l tensions $nd
mutu$l $nimosit& will stem (rom this t&pe o( con(irm$tion. (?) /hen the sel( tries to re$ch h$rmon&
with the other while the other $ttempts to intensi(& $ con(ront$tion, the sel( m$& diminish the
interperson$l (riction b& (ollowing the 2$oist principles, bec$use the person who underst$nds 2$o
is the one who h$s more $ltern$ti1es or choices in perception $nd inter$ction th$n the person
who disobe&s 2$o. According to ,$o 24u, CAppro$ch the uni1erse with 2$o, $nd e1il will h$1e no
powerF not th$t e1il is not puiss$nt, but its power will be h$rmless to peopleC (,$o 24u, .h$p. 66).
*un 24u9s 2he Art o( /$r gi1es $ 1er& insight(ul discussion o( this t&pe o( s&stem $nd its e((ects
on interperson$l beh$1ior. According to *un 24u, people or groups who w$nt to sol1e their
con(licts with others should m$ke $ mo1e th$t in1$lid$tes the $ggressors9 e3pect$tions (*un 24u,
.h$p. 1). 2o win without (ighting $nd in1$lid$te the other9s e3pect$tion, $ person must know
others $nd know the sel( (*un 24u, .h$p. ?). 2he 1ictor& o( $ milit$r& (orce is determined b& the
opponent (*un 24u, .h$p. 6).
2hird, the e((ects o( the uni1ers$l $nd interperson$l s&stems on $n indi1idu$l9s $ctions $nd
perceptions $re $lso medi$ted b& the intr$person$l s&stem, which consists o( two opposite ment$l
(orces within the person (e.g., the cognition th$t enh$nces $n $ccur$te soci$l perception $nd the
cognition th$t distorts the perceptionF the (orce th$t 5usti(ies $n $ction $nd the (orce th$t
condemns the $ction). Aec$use 2$oism 1iews people $s $ microcosm or sm$ll uni1erse th$t is $
p$rt o(, $nd the correspondence o(, the l$rge uni1erse (m$crocosm), the $ntithesis $nd unit& o(
Ein $nd E$ng $nd their $ltern$tion in the uni1erse $lso oper$te within $ person. According to ,$o
24u, $ll the p$irs o( opposites, such $s shrink $nd e3p$nd, we$k $nd strong, ($ll $nd r$ise, $nd
recei1ing $nd gi1ing, c$n be seen $s the two possible $spects o( e$ch ob5ect. 2he intr$person$l
s&stem, which consists o( the tendenc& tow$rd 2$o $nd the tendenc& to de1i$te (rom 2$o,
regul$tes soci$l inter$ction in the (ollowing two w$&s: (1) An& $ttempt to ch$nge soci$l beh$1ior
$nd perceptions depends upon not onl& 1$rious e3tern$l (orces $nd 1$ri$bles, but $lso the
intern$l (orces o( the t$rget person, who $cti1el& interprets $nd responses to the situ$tion. (2)
/ithin the person e3ist two intern$l (orces. 7t is possible to $lter soci$l $ctions $nd perceptions
bec$use e$ch entit& must intern$ll& cont$in the possibilities (or it to de1elop in the two directions
be(ore e3tern$l (orces c$n h$1e $n& in(luences on the entit&. A ch$nge in the direction congruous
with 2$o depends upon the indi1idu$ls9 $w$reness o( the discrep$nc& between their $ctions or
perceptions $nd the 2$oist st$nd$rds the& $ccept.
The causes of interpersonal conflicts
Although con(licts $mong people $nd between people $nd n$ture gener$ll& result (rom people9s
de1i$tion (rom 2$o, ,$o 24u $lso identi(ies se1er$l t$ngible re$sons (or interperson$l discord.
First, the dish$rmon& m$& origin$te (rom the ignor$nce o( the precept C'e1ers$l is the mo1ement
o( 2$oC (,$o 24u, .h$p. @6), which m$int$ins th$t when things de1elop to e3tremes, the& will
e1ol1e in the opposite directions. 2hose who do not know when to stop or who $ttempt to $lter the
mo1ement o( 2$o will encounter in troubles (,$o 24u, .h$p. @@).
*econd, people who belie1e th$t the& c$n subdue others b& being belligerent, 1iolent, $ngr&, $nd
supercilious m$& tempor$ril& repress con(licts, but the& c$nnot cre$te interperson$l h$rmonies,
bec$use 1iolence $nd intimid$tion, which $re contr$dictor& to 2$o, c$n onl& perpetu$te con(licts
$nd tensions (,$o 24u, .h$p. ?6 < 6;)
2hird, indi1idu$ls who $re h$rd, sti((, unbending, $nd $re un$w$re o( $ltern$ti1es will ine1it$bl&
put themsel1es in predic$ments o( con(lict (,$o 24u, .h$p. !6).
The concept of nonaction and the meanings of changes in people!s actions or perceptions
7n the (ollowing discussion, 79d like to use the 2$oist concept Cnon$ctionC to illustr$te how the
oper$tions o( the three s&stems (e.g., the 2$o $nd 2e, the simil$rities $nd di((erences between two
inter$cting people, $nd the two intr$person$l opposite (orces) go1ern the processes o( con(lict
resolution.
As $ ke& connot$tion o( 2e, the non$ction (wuwei) elucid$ted in 1$rious 2$oist liter$ture does not
impl& p$ssi1eness or $c>uiescence. According to ,$o 24u, 2$o $bides in non$ction, &et nothing is
le(t undone (.h$p. ?!). /hen nothing is done, nothing is le(t undone (.h$p. @;). 7n contr$st with
the concept o( $ction, which re(ers to go$ldirected initi$ti1es b& $n $ctor, non$ction re(ers to the
intention$l l$ck o( $ction in the n$tur$l $nd soci$l worlds. :on$ction di((ers (rom omission, which
re(ers to the ($ilure to do or $ neglect o( something th$t is re>uired.
According to 2$oism, ch$nges in people9s perceptions or beh$1ior $re necess$r& $nd possible
onl& when the& $re $berr$nt (rom 2$o. 7( the& do not de1i$te (rom 2$o but someone (e.g., $
rese$rcher or ps&chologist) tries to $lter them, then it is the someone whose thinking or $ctions
should be recti(ied.
2r$dition$l /estern rese$rch on soci$l $ctions $nd perceptions usu$ll& in1ol1es the stud& o( how
the presence o( $ stimulus (e.g., se3, r$ce) $((ects people9s $ctions or perceptions, but it neglects
the ($ct th$t both the presence or the $bsence o( $ stimulus c$n produce p$rticul$r ch$nges in
people9s conduct or cognition.
How can an actor use nonaction to change the other!s actions that exacerbate
interpersonal contentions
2$oism $ssumes th$t non$ction c$n le$d to the reduction o( con(licts $nd ch$nging beh$1ior in
the desired direction onl& when the $ctor underst$nds how to use non$ction $ccording to the
oper$tions o( the three s&stems, e$ch o( which speci(ies $ situ$tion rel$ted to the other th$t the
$ctor must be $w$re o( in order to unr$1el con(licts.
First, $n $ctor c$n use non$ction to ch$nge the other9s conduct $nd perceptions when the $ctor is
$w$re o( the oper$tion o( 2$o, underst$nding $ll $ltern$ti1e ($ctors th$t c$n le$d to the end $nd
how things will de1elop without inter(erence in the n$tur$l course o( the e1ents. 2$oism indic$tes
th$t $n $ctor9s $ctions tow$rd the t$rget person $re onl& one o( m&ri$d (orces (1$rious n$tur$l or
ps&chologic$l (orces) th$t in(luence the person. 81er&thing in the world de1elops $nd tr$ns(orms
$ccording to some l$ws or p$tterns. Digh winds do not l$st $ll morning. De$1& r$in does not l$st
$ll d$& (,$o 24u, .h$p. 2?). 2he world is ruled b& letting things t$ke their course, not b&
inter(ering (,$o 24u, .h$p. @;). 2he Ein $nd E$ng o( 8ntities $ltern$te in time $nd sp$ce e1en
without inter(erence. For e3$mple, long $nd short contr$st e$ch otherF high $nd low rest upon
e$ch otherF 1oice $nd sound h$rmoni4e e$ch otherF (ront $nd b$ck (ollow one $nother. 2here(ore,
the s$ge goes $bout non$ction, te$ching through nont$lking (,$o 24u, .h$p. 2).
2he 2$oist ide$ $bout no inter(erence in people9s $ctions or perceptions is $lso supported b& the
studies b$sed on the theor& o( ps&chologic$l re$ct$nce. 2he& h$1e suggested th$t $ctions m$&
h$1e the opposite e((ects desired b& the $ctors, people m$& be moti1$ted to do something
$ntithetic$l to the $ctor9s intention i( the& (eel their (reedom o( doing th$t thing is depri1ed (Arehm,
1"66F Arehm < Arehm, 1";1). /hen people9s (reedoms to hold some $ttitudes $re thre$tened b&
others9 persu$sions, the& o(ten e3hibit neg$ti1e $ttitude ch$nges or Cboomer$ng e((ect,C b&
mo1ing in $ direction contr$r& to the one $d1oc$ted (Deller, %$ll$k < %icek, 1"!?).
*econd, $n $ctor in $ con(lict situ$tion c$n $lso use non$ction to thw$rt the other9s o((ense b&
emplo&ing the knowledge o( the interperson$l s&stem b$sed on the consider$tion o( both the sel(
$nd the other9s $ltern$ti1es in perception $nd inter$ction. 2he sel( should use the $ltern$ti1es th$t
tr$nscend those o( the other, r$ther th$n con(irming the $nticip$tions o( the other who intends to
esc$l$te the con(lict.
An $ctor9s non$ction c$n curt$il $n o((ender9s pugn$cit& b& in1$lid$ting the $ss$il$nt9s
e3pect$tions $bout the e((ects o( $n $ss$ult on the $ctor or b& cre$ting uncert$int& th$t dem$nds
reduction. For e3$mple, people who eng$ge in beh$1iors o( r$ncorous n$ture $lw$&s $ssume th$t
the e((ects o( their deeds $re percei1ed $s simil$r b& the 1ictims o( the conducts. 7( $ person
rem$ins untouched $(ter being 1ili(ied, the c$lm $ctu$ll& in1$lid$tes the e((ecti1eness o( the
o((ender9s denigr$tion. Gb1iousl&, bec$use people9s $ctions $re regul$ted b& how the& interpret
$nd underst$nd situ$tions $nd inter$ction (D$rre < Hillett, 1""@F )ell&, 1"55F Deider, 1"5;F
)$rniol, 1""6), when the o((enders re$li4e wh$t the& belie1ed to be 1$lid is ine((ecti1e on the
1ictim, the& $re likel& to ch$nge their $ctions $nd the rel$ted cognition.
2hird, the 2$oist non$ction m$& minimi4e interperson$l con(licts b& $((ecting the $ggressors9
intr$person$l s&stem, m$king them $w$re th$t the& h$1e bre$ched some intern$l st$nd$rds to
which the& $dhere. 7n other words, $chie1ing re$l interperson$l h$rmonies $nd sol1ing
interperson$l con(licts $re b$sed on the perpetr$tors9 re$li4$tion th$t their $ctions or perceptions
h$1e str$&ed (rom 2$o.
7t c$n be $rgued th$t ,$o 24u emph$si4es th$t people should rep$& resentment with 2e (.h$p.
6?), bec$use 2e, which is e3empli(ied b& non$ction, c$n impede the others9 o((enses b&
$ugmenting their $w$reness th$t their indign$tion is un5ust. 2he studies b$sed on e>uit& theor&,
(or e3$mple, corrobor$te the 2$oist precept b& m$ni(esting th$t people $re concerned with
whether the outcomes the& recei1e $re congruent with wh$t the& input. 7ne>uit& is $ distressing
st$te $nd moti1$tes people to restore $nd m$int$in e>uit& b& ch$nging their beh$1iors (e.g.,
Ad$ms, 1"65F /$lster, /$lster, < Aerscheid, 1"!;).
Dowe1er, the non$ction o( $n indi1idu$l who is un($irl& tre$ted m$& not cre$te the percei1ed
ine>uit& (or the $ss$il$nt without $t le$st the (ollowing three conditions: (1) 2he $ggressor must
be m$de known o( the e((ects o( hisIher $ctions. For e3$mple, 7 c$nnot educ$te $n egocentric
roomm$te who pl$&s loud music with non$ction i( he or she is un$w$re o( the disturbing e((ect. (2)
2he $nt$gonist h$s imposed hisIher e3pect$tions on the 1ictim, not someone else. (?) 2he
1ictim9s non$ction ser1es onl& $s $ response to the o((ender9s encro$chment. 2h$t is, the
non$ction must be 5usti(ied.
7n short, non$ction th$t c$n le$d to con(lict resolution is b$sed on the $ctor9s underst$nding o(
how things will de1elop without $cti1e inter(erence in their n$tur$l courses, how non$ction c$n
in1$lid$te the o((ender9s e3pect$tions, $nd how non$ction c$n in(luence the (orces within the
person th$t enh$nce the $ccur$te perceptions o( re$lit& or the de1elopment o( $ 5ustice principle.
The conclusions
2he $bo1e discussions indic$te th$t $lthough the 2$oist $ppro$ch w$s (ormul$ted more th$n two
millenni$ $go, it still c$n pro1ide $ uni>ue perspecti1e (or e3$mining $nd underst$nding hum$n
beh$1ior $nd con(lict resolution. Aec$use con(licts, their esc$l$tions, $nd resolutions ch$r$cteri4e
1$rious t&pes o( hum$n inter$ction, the 2$oist model h$s $ gre$t potenti$l to be $pplied to such
di1erse dom$ins $s business m$n$gement, the pre1ention o( 1iolence, counseling $nd
inter1ention, $nd the diminution o( intergroup con(licts. 7n p$rticul$r, 7 belie1e th$t the (ollowing
2$oist precepts merit $ttention in /estern ps&chologic$l rese$rch:
First, 2$oism $ssumes th$t there $re two $ntithetic$l (orces in the uni1ers$l, interperson$l, $nd
intr$person$l s&stems th$t contribute to the de1elopment o( $n interperson$l or intergroup
con(lict: the (orce th$t e3$cerb$tes the con(lict $nd the (orce th$t diminishes it. 7n contr$st,
ps&chologic$l rese$rch in the /est tends to (ocus on the 1$ri$bles th$t intensi(& $ con(lict but is
inclined to ignore the ($ctors th$t reduce it. For e3$mple, most /estern ps&chologic$l studies o(
the c$uses o( pre5udice h$1e e3$mined the 1$ri$bles (e.g., soci$l c$tegori4$tion, $uthorit$ri$nism,
re$listic con(lict) th$t, i( present, will incre$se pre5udice, but the in1estig$tions h$1e o1erlooked
soci$l, cogniti1e, moti1$tion$l, $nd other 1$ri$bles th$t, i( present, will lessen pre5udice (*un,
1""?).
*econd, the 2$oist ide$s $bout interperson$l d&n$mics suggest th$t $ con(lict between two
opponents persists o(ten bec$use the person who tries to $tt$in h$rmon& with the other does not
know more $ltern$ti1es (e.g., $ltern$ti1e w$&s to c$tegori4e, e1$lu$te, e3pl$in, $nd $ct in, the
situ$tion) th$n the other who $ttempts to intensi(& the con(ront$tion. 2his principle m$& $lso be
$pplied to underst$nd the issue o( intern$tion$l con(licts. For e3$mple, $ power(ul n$tion th$t tries
to use economic s$nctions to compel $ we$k n$tion to gi1e in on some issues o(ten get
dis$ppointed, bec$use the power(ul n$tion ($ils to consider $nd e1$lu$te the sel( options other
th$n the economic s$nctions $nd the other9s $ltern$ti1es in de$ling with it. 7 belie1e th$t this
principle h$s not been $bsorbed into the /estern rese$rch on the m$inten$nce mech$nisms o(
both interperson$l $nd intern$tion$l (rictions.
2hird, $s pre1iousl& indic$ted, $ non$ction is o(ten more e((ecti1e in sol1ing $ con(lict th$n $n
$ction. 2he concept o( non$ction $ppe$rs to deser1e more $ppreci$tion in the /estern
ps&cholog&.
Fourth, $ccording to 2$oism, the best w$& to we$ken $ beh$1ior is to (irst strengthen it. 2h$t
which shrinks, must (irst e3p$nd. 2h$t which ($ils, must (irst be strong. 2h$t which is c$st down,
must (irst be r$ised (,$o 24u, .h$p. ?6). 2his proposition is sust$ined b& $ bod& o( studies (see
Dunsle&, 1";;F /egner, 1";"), $nd it merits (urther in1estig$tion.
%s&chologic$l rese$rch in the /est c$n bene(it (rom $ssimil$ting the 2$oist ide$s $bout hum$n
inter$ction.