The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)

by Peter T Coleman

  Although the two modes of explanation are not mutually exclusive, there is a tendency for partisans of the psychological mode to consider that the causal arrow points from psychological conditions to social-political-economic conditions and for partisans of the latter to believe the reverse is true. In any case, much of the social psychological writing in the 1930s, 1940s, and early 1950s on the topics of war, intergroup conflict, and industrial strife was largely nonempirical, and in one vein or the other. The psychologically trained social psychologist tended to favor the psychological mode; the Marxist-oriented or sociologically trained social psychologist more often favored the other.

  The decline of social Darwinism and the instinctivist doctrines was hastened by the development and employment of empirical methods in social psychology. This early empirical orientation to social psychology focused on the socialization of the individual, in part as a reaction to the instinctivist doctrine. It led to a great variety of studies, including a number investigating cooperation and competition. These latter studies are, in my view, the precursors to the empirical, social psychological study of conflict.

  Field Theory, Conflict, and Cooperation-Competition

  During the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, quite independent of the work being conducted in the United States on cooperation-competition, Kurt Lewin and his students were theorizing and conducting research that profoundly affected later work in many areas of social psychology. Lewin’s field theory—with its dynamic concepts of tension systems, “driving” and “restraining” forces, “own” and “induced” forces, valences, levels of aspiration, power fields, interdependence, overlapping situations, and so on—created a new vocabulary for thinking about conflict and cooperation-competition.

  As early as 1931, employing his analysis of force fields, Lewin (1931, 1935) presented a penetrating theoretical discussion of three basic types of psychological conflict: approach-approach, in which the individual stands between two positive valences of approximately equal strength; avoidance-avoidance, where the individual stands between two negative valences of approximately equal strength; and approach-avoidance, meaning the individual is exposed to opposing forces deriving from positive and negative valences. Hull (1938) translated Lewin’s analysis into the terminology of the goal gradient, and Miller (1937, 1944) elaborated and did research on it. Numerous experimental studies supported the theoretical analysis.

  My own initial theorizing on cooperation-competition (Deutsch, 1949b) was influenced by Lewinian thinking on tension systems, which was reflected in a series of brilliant experiments on the recall of interrupted activities (Zeigarnik), the resumption of interrupted activities (Ovsiankina), substitutability (Mahler), and the role of ego in cooperative work (Lewis and Franklin). But even more of my thinking was indebted to the ideas that were in the air at the MIT Research Center for Group Dynamics. Ways of characterizing and explaining group processes and group functioning, employing the language of Lewinian theorizing, were under constant discussion there among the students and faculty. Thus, it was quite natural that when I settled on cooperation-competition as the topic of my doctoral dissertation, I employed the Lewinian dynamic emphasis on goals and how they are interrelated as my key theoretical wedge into this topic.

  Even more important, the preoccupation at the MIT center with understanding group processes pressed me to formulate my ideas about cooperation and competition so that they would be relevant to the psychological and interpersonal processes occurring within and between groups. This pressure forced my theory and research (Deutsch, 1949a, 1949b) to go considerably beyond the prior social psychological work on cooperation-competition. My theorizing and research were concerned not only with the individual and group outcomes of cooperation and competition but also with the social psychological processes that would give rise to those outcomes. This work has central relevance to understanding the processes involved in conflict. It is summarized in chapter 1.

  Game Theory and Games

  In 1944, von Neumann and Morgenstern published their now-classic work, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Game theory has made a major contribution to the work of social scientists by formulating the problem of conflict of interest in mathematical terms. However, it is neither the mathematics nor the normative prescriptions for minimizing losses when facing an intelligent adversary that have made game theory of considerable value to social psychologists. Rather, it is the core emphasis on the parties in conflict having interdependent interests; their fates are woven together. Although the mathematical and normative development of game theory has been most successful in connection with pure competitive conflict (zero-sum games), game theory also recognizes that cooperative as well as competitive interests may be intertwined in conflict (as in coalition games or non-zero-sum games).

  Game theory’s recognition of the intertwining of cooperative and competitive interests in situations of conflict (or, in Schelling’s useful term, the mixed-motive nature of conflict; Schelling, 1960) has had a productive impact on the social psychological study of conflict, theoretically as well as methodologically. Theoretically, at least for me, it helped buttress a viewpoint that I had developed prior to my acquaintance with game theory: that conflicts were typically mixtures of cooperative and competitive processes and that the course of conflict would be determined by the nature of the mixture. This emphasis on the cooperative elements involved in conflict ran counter to what was then the dominant view of conflict as a competitive struggle.

  Methodologically, game theory had an impact on an even larger group of psychologists. The mathematical formulations of game theory had the indirect but extremely valuable consequence of laying bare some fascinating paradoxical situations in such a way that they were highly suggestive of experimental work. Game matrices as an experimental device were popular because they facilitated precise definition of the reward structure encountered by the subjects, and hence of the way they depend on one another. Partly stimulated by and partly in reaction to the research using game matrices, other research games for the study of conflict were also developed. Well over one thousand studies based on experimental games had been published by 1985. Much of this research, as is true in other areas of science, was mindless—being done because a convenient experimental format was readily available. But some of it has, I believe, helped to develop systematic understanding of conflict processes and conflict resolution. Fortunately, in recent years, experimental gaming has been supplemented by other experimental procedures and by field studies that overcome some of the inherent limitations of experimental gaming.

  Themes in Contemporary Social Psychological Research on Conflicts

  Social psychological research and theorizing on conflict during the past fifty years have primarily addressed fifteen major questions (see Deutsch, 1990, for more detail about the first five):

  What conditions give rise to a constructive or destructive process of conflict resolution? In terms of bargaining and negotiation, the emphasis here is on determining the circumstances that allow the conflicting parties to arrive at a mutually satisfactory agreement that maximizes their joint outcomes. In a sense, this first question arises from focusing on the cooperative potential inherent in conflict. In social psychology, this question has been most directly addressed in my work and that of my students and summarized in my 1973 book, The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. All of the chapters in this Handbook are relevant; the chapters focusing on constructive controversy and cooperation-competition are most relevant.

  What circumstances, strategies, and tactics lead one party to do better than another in a conflict situation? The stress here is on how one can wage conflict, or bargain, so as to win or at least do better than one’s adversary. This question emerges from focusing on the competitive features of a conflict situation. It has been mainly addressed by economists and political scientists (e.g., Schelling, 1960). In social psychology, research related to this question focuses on bargaining tactics such a
s “being ignorant,” “being tough,” “being belligerent,” “the effects of threats,” and how to increase one’s bargaining power. This question is treated only indirectly in this Handbook, by inference, because of the book’s emphasis on constructive conflict resolution.

  What determines the nature of the agreement between conflicting parties if they are able to reach an agreement? Here the concern is with the cognitive and normative factors that lead people to conceive a possible agreement and perceive it as a salient possibility for reaching a stable agreement—one that each of the conflicting parties sees as “just” under the circumstances. This third question is a recent one and has been addressed under the heading of research on the social psychology of equity and justice. Chapter 2, on social justice, is most directly relevant to this question, but other chapters bear on it as well.

  How can third parties be used to prevent conflicts from becoming destructive or to help deadlocked or embittered negotiators move toward constructive management of their conflicts? This question has been reflected in studies of mediation and in strategies for deescalating conflict. Chapter 34, on mediation, pertains most directly, but all of the chapters have some relevance.

  How can people be educated to manage their conflicts constructively? This has been a concern of consultants working with leaders in industry and government and also with those who have responsibility for educating children in our schools. All of the chapters bear on this question. During the past twenty-five years, many additional questions have emerged as a focus of work in the field of conflict resolution as the field has expanded in popularity as well as substance.

  How and when should one intervene in prolonged, intractable conflicts? Much of the literature in conflict resolution has been preventive rather than remedial in its emphasis. It is concerned with understanding the conditions that foster productive rather than destructive conflict (as in question 1) or developing knowledge about the circumstances that lead to intractable, destructive conflict in the hope of preventing such conflict. More recently, the reality that many protracted, destructive conflicts exist in the world has induced some scholars to focus their attention on this problem. In this book, the discussions of intractable conflicts (chapter 30), mediation (chapter 34), and intergroup conflict (chapter 1) are particularly relevant.

  How are we to understand why ethnic, religious, and identity conflicts frequently take an intractable, destructive course? With the end of the Cold War, there appeared to be a proliferation of such conflicts. In the past thirty years, interest in such conflicts has been renewed. The chapters most directly pertaining to this question are those dealing with intergroup and cultural conflict, but almost all are relevant.

  How applicable in other cultural contexts are the theories related to conflict that have largely been developed in the United States and Western Europe? In recent years, there has been much discussion in the literature of the differences that exist in how people from varying cultural backgrounds deal with negotiations and, more generally, manage conflict. We have not attempted to summarize the cultural differences that exist with regard to conflict management. However, in discussing culture and conflict (chapters 27 and 28), on applying conflict theory in China, there is discussion of the issue of cross-cultural generalizability.

  How do we foster reconciliation between parties who have been in a bitter, deadly, destructive conflict? Since the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa, there has been considerable interest and some research related to this question. See chapter 40 by Staub. Other chapters have relevant discussions as well—for example, the chapters on justice, trust, change, intractable conflict, and intergroup conflict (chapters 2, 5, 8, 22, and 30).

  How do we help people “negotiate the nonnegotiable,” as in conflicts over identity, basic values, or religious conflict? In its more extreme form, this question can be expressed in another way: How does one understand and deal with fundamentalism, terrorism, and suicide bombers? While many chapters have relevance to this question (in its less extreme form), the chapter dealing with moral and religious conflicts are focused on this issue (chapter 53).

  How do we understand the often implicit, theoretical presuppositions and framework about the conflict that affect one’s orientation to and behaviors during conflict? These presuppositions often reflect personality disposition, cultural influences, and life experiences. The chapters on implicit theories and conflict, personality and conflict, and culture and conflict are directly relevant (chapters 16, 17, and 25); many other chapters have indirect relevance.

  How do we identify ripeness, critical moments, or turning points in a conflict? Often these crucial periods provide an opportunity to change the direction of a conflict from a destructive process to a constructive one. No chapter focuses on this specifically, but there are relevant discussions in the chapters dealing with trust, intractable conflict, and mediation (chapters 5, 30, and 34).

  What are the constructive and destructive effects of emotions during conflict? The important role of emotions during conflict has been much neglected until recently. The chapter on emotions and conflict focuses on this question (chapter 12), and many other chapters have some relevant discussion.

  Terrorism. Since the terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda on September 11, 2001, there has been increased interest in understanding such questions as: What gives rise to terrorism? How does it get organized? What is the nature of its leaders? What are the psychological and demographic characteristics of those who carry out terrorist activities such as suicide bombing? Chapter 32 addresses this topic.

  Evaluation research. There has been a considerable increase in research in the area of conflict research in recent years as the field has grown. The research has employed such different methodologies as experimental laboratory studies, field studies, and participatory action research. Research has focused on theory development and also on the effectiveness of various types of intervention such as mediation to resolve conflicts; reconciliation efforts after destructive conflict; workshops to help leaders and managers learn to manage organization conflicts constructively in their organizations; and education in schools to teach students at all levels the skills, knowledge, and values of constructive conflict resolution.

  Although various chapters of this book have direct relevance to the questions listed here, the aim of this third edition of The Handbook of Conflict Resolution is not to summarize the work done so far in the field of conflict resolution. Rather, its aim is to enrich the field by presenting the theoretical underpinnings that throw light on the fundamental social psychological processes in all levels of conflict. None of the theories is adequate to deal by itself with the complexities involved in any specific conflict or any type of conflict. As I noted previously in this chapter, each theory is a component of the particular mosaic that needs to be created to understand and manage a unique conflict constructively.

  References

  Banton, M. Race Relations. New York: Basic Books, 1967.

  Cairns, E., and Darby, J. “The Conflict in Northern Ireland: Causes, Consequences, and Controls.” American Psychologist, 1998, 53, 754–760.

  Cantril, H. (ed.). Tensions That Cause Wars. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1950.

  Deutsch, M. “An Experimental Study of the Effects of Cooperation and Competition upon Group Processes.” Human Relations, 1949a, 2, 199–231.

  Deutsch, M. “A Theory of Cooperation and Competition.” Human Relations, 1949b, 2, 129–152.

  Deutsch, M. The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973.

  Deutsch, M. “Commentary: On Negotiating the Nonnegotiable.” In B. Kellerman and J. Rubin (eds.), Leadership and Negotiation in the Middle East. New York: Praeger, 1988.

  Deutsch, M. “Sixty Years of Conflict.” International Journal of Conflict Management, 1990, 1, 237–263.

  Hull, C. L. “The Goal-Gradient Hypothesis Applied to Some ‘Field Force’ Proble
ms in the Behavior of Young Children.” Psychological Review, 1938, 45, 271–279.

  Hyman, S. E. The Tangled Bank. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1966.

  Klineberg, O. The Human Dimensions in International Relations. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964.

  Lewin, K. “Environmental Forces in Child Behavior and Development.” In C. Murchison (ed.), A Handbook of Child Psychology. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press, 1931.

  Lewin, K. A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1935.

  Miller, N. E. “Analysis of the Form of Conflict Reactions.” Psychological Bulletin, 1937, 34(1), 720–731.

  Miller, N. E. “Experimental Studies of Conflict.” In J. M. Hunt (ed.), Personality and the Behavior Disorders. Vol. 1. New York: Ronald Press, 1944.

  Schachtel, E. G. Metamorphosis: On the Development of Affect, Perception, Attention, and Memory. New York: Basic Books, 1959.

  Schelling, T. C. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960.

  Shapiro, D. L. “Creative Problem Solving: Not Just About the Problem” In P. T. Coleman and M. Deutsch (eds.), Psychological Components of Sustainable Peace. New York: Springer, 2012.

  von Neumann, J., and Morgenstern, O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. New York: Wiley, 1944.

  PART ONE

  INTERPERSONAL AND INTERGROUP PROCESSES

  CHAPTER ONE

  COOPERATION, COMPETITION, AND CONFLICT

  Morton Deutsch

  Some time ago in the garden of a friend’s house, my five-year-old son and his chum were struggling over possession of a water hose. (They were in conflict.) Each wanted to use it first to water the garden. (They had a competitive orientation.) Each was trying to tug it away from the other, and both were crying. Each was very frustrated, and neither was able to use the hose to sprinkle the flowers as he had desired. After reaching a deadlock in this tug-of-war, they began to punch one another and call each other names. As a result of their competitive approach, the conflict took a destructive course for both of them—producing frustration, crying, and violence.