This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Rudas T, Clogg C C, Lindsay B G 1994 A new index of ﬁt based on mixture methods for the analysis of contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B Met 56: 623–39 Stern W 1911 Die diﬀerentielle Psychologie in ihren methodischen Grundlagen, 3rd edn. J A Barth, Leipzig, Germany von Eye A 1990 Introduction to Conﬁgural Frequency Analysis. The Search for Types and Antitypes in Cross-Classiﬁcations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK von Eye A, Brandtstadter J 1997 Conﬁgural frequency analysis $ as a searching device for possible causal relationships. Methods of Psychological Research—Online 2: 1–23 von Eye A, Brandtstadter J 1998 The wedge, the fork, and the $ chain: modeling dependency concepts using manifest categorical variables. Psychological Methods 3: 169–85 von Eye A, Indurkhya A, Kellam S 2001 Typifying developmental trajectories. (in preparation) von Eye A, Indurkhya A, Kreppner K 2000 CFA as a tool for person-oriented research—Unidimensional and within-individual analyses of nominal level and ordinal data. Psychologische Beitrage 42: 383–401 W von Eye A, Rovine M J 1988 A comparison of signiﬁcance tests for Conﬁgural Frequency Analysis. EDP in Medicine and Biology 19: 6–13 von Eye A, Schuster C 1998 On the speciﬁcation of models for conﬁgural frequency analysis—sampling schemes in prediction CFA. Methods of Psychological Research–Online 3: 55–73 von Eye A, Schuster C, Gutie! rrez-Pena E 2000 Conﬁgural 4 frequency analysis under retrospective and prospective sampling schemes—frequentist and Bayesian approaches. Psychologische Beitraege 42: 428–47 von Eye A, Spiel C, Wood P K 1996 Conﬁgural frequency analysis in applied psychological research. Applied Psychology: An International Re iew 45: 301–27 von Eye A, Spiel C, Rovine M J 1995 Concepts of independence in conﬁgural frequency analysis. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 20: 41–54 Wood P K, Sher K J, von Eye A 1994 Conjugate methods in conﬁgural frequency analysis. Biometrical Journal 36: 387–410
Conﬂict occurs at all levels of society, from the interpersonal to the international, and hence is of interest to most branches of the social and behavioral sciences. Conﬂict has attracted the attention of researchers because of its large costs and beneﬁts. Costs are incurred when conﬂict escalates to the point of harming relationships, destroying property, or injuring people. Beneﬁts accrue because conﬂict presides over most signiﬁcant social change; contributes to solidarity within conﬂicting groups; and in its milder forms, often leads to the reconciliation of legitimate interests, thus strengthening relationships and safeguarding the peace.
1. Sources of Conﬂict
The modern social psychology of conﬂict began with a demonstration ﬁeld experiment by Sherif (1966). Sherif ran several summer camps in which he produced overt conﬂict between two cabins of preadolescent boys and then resolved this conﬂict. Conﬂict was produced by means of the two sources of subjective conﬂict mentioned above: divergence of interest (for example, competitive games) and annoyance attributed to the other group (for example, the counselors vandalized one cabins’ campgrounds and blamed it on the other cabin). What conditions produce divergence of interest and annoyance from others? One answer is scarce resources. A second is role diﬀerentiation that produces disparate values, as between buyer and seller, parent and child, sales and production. A third is any condition that causes aspirations to rise rapidly (such as a sudden improvement in outcomes) or to become inconsistent with those of another party (such as ambiguity about which party is more powerful). A fourth is any source of distrust, because distrust tends to block cooperation and produce defensive behavior, which often annoys or frightens the other party. When groups rather than individuals are involved, additional mechanisms encourage conﬂict. Groups are less trusted than individuals. Also, a perception that one’s group is deprived relative to a reasonable standard (fraternalistic depri ation) has been shown to be a major source of political conﬂict. Arguing that Sherif’s ‘realistic conﬂict theory’ is too narrow, Tajfel (1978) proposes that intergroup conﬂict often arises because group members compete with other groups in an eﬀort to feel good about their social identity and hence about themselves. Another unique aspect of groups is the role of leadership. Leaders and would-be leaders often dramatize frustration at the hands of other groups, exacerbating conﬂicts while strengthening their position with their constituents.
A. von Eye
Conﬂict and Conﬂict Resolution, Social Psychology of
The term ‘conﬂict’ has two broad meanings: o ert conﬂict, which refers to clashing actions by two or more parties, as in a ﬁst ﬁght or war, and subjecti e conﬂict, which refers to perceived divergence of interest or annoyance attributed to another party. Subjective conﬂict is often a source of overt conﬂict, as when annoyance about a neighbor’s loud music leads to a shouting match. But subjective conﬂict can produce other outcomes as well, including use of the following four basic strategies: contending, problem solving, yielding, and inaction. Only one of these, contending, leads to overt conﬂict.
2. Strategic Choice in Conﬂict
Rubin et al. (1994) have put forward a dual concern model of the psychological states that aﬀect choice 2531
Conﬂict and Conﬂict Resolution, Social Psychology of mood. Other research suggests that contentious tactics are more likely to be adopted the greater the annoyance or perceived divergence of interest, the more dehumanized the target, and the more deindividuated the actor or target. When increasingly harsh contentious tactics are used in a conﬂict, escalation is said to occur. Escalation usually results from a conﬂict spiral in which each party is reacting to the other party’s most recent actions. However, some escalation consists of one party’s reactions to persistent annoyance from another party (Pruitt 1998). Escalation is often accompanied by other changes: issues proliferate, negative attitudes and partisan perceptions develop, distrust sets in, goals change from doing well for oneself to hurting the other party, and broader communities polarize into hostile camps (Rubin et al. 1994). If groups are involved, ingroup solidarity usually increases and militant leaders often become more prominent. These changes tend to outlive the conﬂict in which they are generated, hurting the broader relationship between the parties and making the next conﬂict episode more likely to escalate (Coleman 1957).
Concern about other’s outcomes
Concern about own outcomes
Figure 1 The dual concern model (after Pruitt and Carnevale 1993, p. 105)
among the four basic strategies mentioned earlier. Shown in Fig. 1, this model postulates two kinds of concern: concern about own outcomes (‘self-concern’) and concern about the other party’s outcomes (‘otherconcern’), each ranging from weak to strong. People with strong self-concern have high, inﬂexible aspirations and are resistant to concession making. People with strong other-concern place importance on the other party’s interests. Self-concern and other-concern are independent dimensions rather than opposite ends of a continuum. Beginning in the upper left-hand quadrant of Fig. 1, low self-concern coupled with high other-concern is assumed to produce a strong altruistic orientation, which encourages yielding. High selfconcern combined with high other-concern is assumed to produce a strong cooperative orientation, which encourages problem solving. High self-concern combined with low other-concern is assumed to produce a strong individualistic orientation, which leads to the use of contentious tactics. Low self-concern coupled with low other-concern is assumed to produce inaction, an absence of eﬀorts to achieve anything. The dual concern model, though not a comprehensive theory of strategic choice, ﬁts a lot of data from psychometric and experimental research. The psychometric tradition, which employs factor analysis and multidimensional scaling, views strategic preferences as individual diﬀerences in ‘conﬂict style.’ The experimental tradition, which involves studies of negotiation behavior, examines conditions that aﬀect the likelihood of choosing each strategy. These studies have identiﬁed several sources of self-concern, including having high aspirations or fallback positions, being an accountable representative, and negatively framing the issues so that concessions are interpreted as loss rather than failure to gain. Sources of otherconcern include having a close relationship with or dependence on the other party, and being in a positive 2532
3. Conditions that Encourage Conﬂict Resolution
Conﬂict resolution refers to any reduction in the severity of conﬂict or mitigation of its underlying causes. It may entail de-escalation of an overt struggle or reconciliation (in whole or in part) of divergent interests. Social psychologists have long been interested in the role of social contact and communication in the resolution of conﬂict. Research has shown that these procedures help to alleviate mild conﬂict but may be worse than useless in severe conﬂict, allowing arguments and ﬁghts to develop (Deutsch 1973). Sherif (1966) found that a better way to reverse escalation in his camps was to get the boys to cooperate on superordinate (i.e., shared) goals. The value of this technique has been conﬁrmed in other settings. Zartman (1997), an international relations scholar who takes a psychological approach, has argued that severe conﬂict is most likely to be resolved when both sides become motivated to escape the conﬂict, a condition he calls ripeness. He ﬁnds that superordinate goals (‘mutually enticing opportunities’) seldom underlie ripeness in international conﬂict and civil war. Rather, ripeness is usually produced by a mutually hurting stalemate, in which the parties ﬁnd that they are enduring unacceptable costs in a struggle they cannot win, sometimes augmented by the perception of an impending catastrophe if the conﬂict continues. It can be argued that severe conﬂicts of the kind discussed by Zartman will only move toward resolution if ripeness is supplemented by optimism about the success of conciliatory actions. Optimism derives from two sources: working trust, a belief that the other
Conﬂict and Conﬂict Resolution, Social Psychology of side is also motivated to resolve the conﬂict, and percei ed common ground, a perception that a mutually acceptable agreement is actually possible. Optimism can develop in a number of ways. Sometimes one of the parties takes unilateral conciliatory initiati es that encourage the other party to become more trusting. Such initiatives are especially eﬀective when they are noticeable and unexpected, are fully explained, and cannot be construed as a trick or sign of weakness (Rubin et al. 1994). In severe conﬂicts, optimism more commonly arises out of intervention by intermediaries. Sometimes the psychological and social distance between adversaries is so great that a chain of two or more intermediaries is necessary to bridge the gap. Among the most important mediator tactics are building rapport with the disputants, facilitating communication, questioning unrealistic aspirations, reframing the issues, encouraging disputant creativity, and thinking up new solutions if the disputants fail to do so. Several studies support a broad generalization, that vigorous mediator intervention tends to be eﬀective when the parties are hostile toward each other or lack the motivation to escape their conﬂict but is counterproductive when the opposite is true (Rubin et al. 1994). Mediators are especially likely to succeed when the parties are highly motivated to resolve the conﬂict, resource shortages are not severe, and the issues do not involve general principles. Mediator neutrality usually contributes to the success of mediation but is not as essential, as formerly believed. Indeed, success is sometimes achieved because the mediator is closer to the side that must make the larger concessions (Kressel et al. 1989). In arbitration, the third party renders a judgment about the proper solution to the conﬂict. Several studies have examined the impact of med-arb, a procedure in which binding arbitration occurs if agreement is not reached in mediation. This procedure usually motivates the disputants to try harder to solve their dispute during the mediation phase, because they fear loss of control over their outcomes if arbitration occurs (Kressel et al. 1989). When disputants have a distressed relationship, third parties sometimes engage in relationship therapy (Pruitt 1998). Relationship therapy, which has been pioneered by marital therapists, usually involves problem solving training, in which the parties are taught skills of listening, clear communication, avoiding blame, analyzing needs, and brainstorming for solutions. The therapist may also help the disputants identify repetitive patterns of interaction that are contributing to the conﬂict. Kelman (1992) has developed problem sol ing workshops, a form of relationship therapy for intergroup and international conﬂict. In these workshops, selected members of both groups meet for several days to analyze the conﬂict. When conﬂicts become violent or threaten to do so, third party intervention may take the form of peacekeeping. Examples include separating ﬁghting children, arresting abusive spouses, and United Nations operations within ethnically divided countries. Fisher and Keashly (Fisher 1990) have proposed a normative model which recommends that third parties: (a) use peace keeping in violent conﬂicts, (b) provide incentives to encourage ripeness in heavily escalated but nonviolent conﬂicts, (c) oﬀer relationship therapy (they call it ‘consultation’) in moderately escalated conﬂicts, and (d) mediate mildly escalated conﬂicts. This model assumes that each of these strategies produces the conditions necessary for the success of the next strategy in the list. A ﬁnal third-party role is the design of conﬂict management systems for large social entities such as 2533
Conﬂict resolution can begin in a number of ways, but to be successful, it usually must culminate in negotiation. In other words, the parties must eventually try to work out their diﬀerences. Research on negotiation has been the centerpiece of the social psychological approach to conﬂict for many years. Most of it is done in the laboratory with experimental games, but case studies and questionnaires are also sometimes used. At one time, research on negotiation was mostly performed in departments of psychology, but today, the main locus of this research is in management schools, where investigators who are basically social psychologists conduct dozens of studies each year. Early experimental research dealt with negotiation about a single issue (e.g., a price or a wage rate), where one party’s gain is the other’s loss. But current research usually looks at more complex settings that have integrati e potential, in the sense that all parties can do well if they engage in problem solving. An important generalization, which applies to both kinds of settings, is that higher demands and slower concessions make it harder to reach agreement but, if agreement is reached, produce more favorable outcomes. Summaries of the psychological research on negotiation can be found in Bazerman et al. (2000) and Pruitt and Carnevale (1993).
Third Party Inter ention
When conﬂict threatens to escalate and negotiation is ineﬀective, third parties often intervene. Five intervention procedures will be reviewed here: mediation, arbitration, relationship therapy, peacekeeping, and the design of conﬂict management systems. In mediation, a third party assists the disputants with their negotiation. (Mediation includes the activities of intermediaries, a topic discussed earlier.)
Conﬂict and Conﬂict Resolution, Social Psychology of schools, factories, and communities. Guidelines put forward by Ury et al. (1988) include identifying potentially antagonistic groups, appointing and training prospective negotiators on each side who will meet if conﬂict develops, appointing and training prospective mediators to help these negotiators, and agreeing to observe an immediate cooling-oﬀ period whenever conﬂict develops. Such systems work better if they involve early warning systems that allow negotiators and mediators to mobilize in advance of hostilities. mainly depend on ideas from other disciplines, a problem shared with many other branches of the social sciences. The other two criticisms concern the study of negotiation. One is that there is too much emphasis on the phase of actual negotiation, in which joint decisions are made, as opposed to the pre- and postnegotiation phases. Indeed, the latter two phases are often longer and more complex than the phase of actual negotiation and have more bearing on whether conﬂict is resolved (Druckman 1986). The other criticism is that there is too much research on negotiation altogether. Negotiation is, after all, only one star in a much larger universe. See also: Conﬂict and Socioemotional Development; Conﬂict: Anthropological Aspects; Conﬂict\Consensus; Conﬂict Sociology; Dispute Resolution in Economics; Mediation, Arbitration, and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR); Negotiation and Bargaining: Role of Lawyers
6. Disputant Preferences among Conﬂict Resolution Procedures
A number of studies have examined disputant preferences among the procedures available for conﬂict resolution. A persistent ﬁnding is that arbitration is preferred to autocratic decision making. According to Lind and Tyler (1988), this shows that having a voice in the proceedings contributes to a sense of procedural justice. Preferences among negotiation, mediation, and arbitration depend on the circumstances. For example, high time pressure enhances attraction to arbitration, presumably because it can be ﬁnished up quickly. On the other hand, people in close relationships tend to reject arbitration, presumably because of its coercive features. Sequences of preferences are often found, a common one being to start with negotiation and move to third-party intervention if negotiation is unsuccessful (Pruitt and Carnevale 1993). Some recent research has concerned cultural diﬀerences in preferences among conﬂict resolution procedures. For example, when dealing with ingroup members, people from collectivist societies prefer nonconfrontational procedures, hence, they are less attracted to direct competition and problem solving than people from individualist societies (Bazerman et al. 2000). But when dealing with outgroup members, collectivists tend to be more competitive than individualists (Pruitt and Carnevale 1993).
Bazerman M H, Curhan J R, Moore D A, Valley K L 2000 Negotiation. Annual Re iew of Psychology. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, CA Coleman J S 1957 Community Conﬂict. Free Press, Glencoe, IL Deutsch M 1973 The Resolution of Conﬂict: Constructi e and Destructi e Processes. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT Druckman D 1986 Stages, turning points, and crisis: Negotiating military base rights, Spain and the United States. Journal of Conﬂict Resolution 30: 327–60 Fisher R J 1990 The Social Psychology of Intergroup and International Conﬂict Resolution. Springer-Verlag, New York Kelman H C 1992 Informal mediation by the scholar\practitioner. In: Bercovitch J, Rubin J Z et al. (eds.) Mediation in International Relations: Multiple Approaches to Conﬂict Management. St. Martin’s Press, New York Kressel K et al. 1989 Mediation Research: The Process and Eﬀecti eness of Third-Party Inter ention. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA Lind E A, Tyler T R 1988 The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Plenum, New York Pruitt D G 1998 Social conﬂict. In: Gilbert D T, Fiske S T, Lindzey G (eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA, Vol. 2 Pruitt D G, Carnevale P J 1993 Negotiation in Social Conﬂict. Brooks\Cole, Paciﬁc Grove, CA Rubin J Z, Pruitt D G, Kim S H 1994 Social Conﬂict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York Sherif M 1966 Group Conﬂict and Cooperation. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London Tajfel H 1978 Diﬀerentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Academic Press, New York Ury W L, Brett J M, Goldberg S 1988 Getting Disputes Resol ed: Designing Systems to Cut the Costs of Conﬂict. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA Zartman I W 1997 Explaining Oslo. International Negotiation 2: 195–215
Conﬂict and conﬂict resolution are vigorous research ﬁelds. The interdisciplinary nature of these ﬁelds can be seen in the annual conferences of the International Association for Conﬂict Management and the pages of the Journal of Conﬂict Resolution, the International Journal of Conﬂict Management, and the Negotiation Journal. Social psychologists in psychology departments were more prominent in these ﬁelds at an earlier time than they are today. But the contribution of social psychology is readily apparent in the work of investigators from most other disciplines. Three criticisms of these ﬁelds seem appropriate. The ﬁrst is that they lack an overarching theory and 2534
D. G. Pruitt Copyright # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. ISBN: 0-08-043076-7
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.