The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)

by Peter T Coleman

  Creativity.

  Constructive controversy tends to promote creative insight by influencing individuals to view problems from different perspectives and reformulate problems in ways that allow the emergence of new orientations to a solution. Compared with concurrence seeking, debate, and individualistic efforts, constructive controversy increases the number of ideas, quality of ideas, creation of original ideas, the use of a wider range of ideas, originality, the use of more varied strategies, and the number of creative, imaginative, novel solutions. Being confronted with credible alternative views has resulted in the generation of more novel solutions, varied strategies, and original ideas. Participants in a constructive controversy tend to have a high degree of emotional involvement in and commitment to solving the problems the group was working on.

  Attitude Change about the Issue.

  Open-minded consideration of all points of view is critical for deriving well-reasoned decisions that integrate the best information and thought from a variety of positions. Participants should open-mindedly believe that opposing positions are based on legitimate information and logic that, if fully understood, will lead to creative solutions that benefit everyone. Involvement in a controversy tends to result in attitude and position change. Participants in a controversy tend to reevaluate their attitudes about the issue and incorporate opponents’ arguments into their own attitudes. Participating in a constructive controversy tends to result in attitude change beyond what occurs when individuals read about the issue, and these attitude changes tend to be relatively stable over time (i.e., not merely a response to the controversy experience itself).

  Motivation to Improve Understanding.

  Effective decision making is typically enhanced by a continuing motivation to learn more about the issues being considered. Most decisions are temporary because they may be reconsidered at some future date. Participants in a constructive controversy tend to have more continuing motivation to learn about the issue and come to the best reasoned judgment possible than do participants in concurrence seeking (ES = 0.75), debate (0.45), and individualistic efforts (ES = 0.71). Participants in a controversy tend to search for more information and new experiences (increased specific content) and a more adequate cognitive perspective and reasoning process (increased validity) in hopes of resolving the uncertainty. There is also an active interest in learning the others’ positions and developing an understanding and appreciation of them. Lowry and Johnson (1981), for example, found that students involved in a controversy, compared with students involved in concurrence seeking, read more library materials, reviewed more classroom materials, more frequently watched an optional movie shown during recess, and more frequently requested information from others. Generally motivation is increased by participating in a constructive controversy.

  Attitudes toward Controversy.

  If participants are to be committed to implement the decision and participate in future decision making, they must react favorably to the way decisions are made. Individuals involved in controversy liked the procedure better than did those working individualistically, and participating in a controversy consistently promoted more positive attitudes toward the experience than did participating in a debate, concurrence-seeking discussions, or individualistic decisions. Constructive controversy experiences promoted stronger beliefs that controversy is valid and valuable.

  Attitudes toward Decision Making.

  If participants are to be committed to implement the decision and participate in future decision making, they must consider the decision worth making. Individuals who engaged in controversies tended to value the decision-making task more than did individuals who engaged in concurrence-seeking discussions (ES = 0.63).

  Interpersonal Attraction and Support among Participants.

  Decision making, to be effective, must be conducted in ways that bring individuals together rather than create ill will and divisiveness. Within controversy, disagreement, argumentation, and rebuttal could create difficulties in establishing good relationships. Constructive controversy, however, has been found to promote greater liking among participants than did debate (ES = 0.72), concurrence seeking (ES = 0.24), or individualistic efforts (ES = 0.81). Debate tended to promote greater interpersonal attraction among participants than did individualistic efforts (ES = 0.46). In addition, constructive controversy tends to promote greater social support among participants than does debate (ES = 0.92), concurrence seeking (ES = 0.32), or individualistic efforts (ES = 1.52). Debate tended to promote greater social support among participants than did individualistic efforts (ES = 0.92). The combination of frank exchange of ideas coupled with a positive climate of friendship and support not only leads to more productive decision making and greater learning, it disconfirms the myth that conflict inevitably leads to divisiveness and dislike.

  Self-Esteem.

  Participation in future decision making is enhanced when participants feel good about themselves as a result of helping make the current decision, whether or not they agree with it. Constructive controversy tends to promote higher self-esteem than does concurrence seeking (ES = 0.39), debate (ES = 0.51), or individualistic efforts (ES = 0.85). Debate tends to promote higher self-esteem than individualistic efforts do (ES = 0.45).

  Conditions Determining the Constructiveness of Controversy

  Although controversies can operate in a beneficial way, they will not do so under all conditions. Whether controversy results in positive or negative consequences depends on the conditions under which it occurs and the way in which it is managed. These conditions include the context within which the constructive controversy takes place, the heterogeneity of participants, the distribution of information among group members, the level of group members’ social skills, and group members’ ability to engage in rational argument (Johnson and Johnson, 1979, 1989, 2007).

  Cooperative Goal Structure.

  Deutsch (1973) emphasizes that the context in which conflicts occur has important effects on whether the conflict turns out to be constructive or destructive. There are two common contexts for controversy: cooperative and competitive. A cooperative context tends to facilitate constructive controversy, whereas a competitive context tends to promote destructive controversy. Controversy within a competitive context tends to promote closed-minded disinterest and rejection of the opponent’s ideas and information (Tjosvold, 1998). Within a cooperative context, constructive controversy induces feelings of comfort, pleasure, and helpfulness in discussing opposing positions; an open-minded listening to the opposing positions; motivation to hear more about the opponent’s arguments; more accurate understanding of the opponent’s position; and the reaching of more integrated positions where both one’s own and one’s opponent’s conclusions and reasoning are synthesized into a final position.

  Skilled Disagreement.

  For controversies to be managed constructively, participants need both cooperative and conflict management skills (Johnson, 2014; Johnson and F. Johnson, 2013). The following skills are necessary for following and internalizing these norms:

  I am critical of ideas, not people. I challenge and refute the ideas of the other participants, while confirming their competence and value as individuals. I do not indicate that I personally reject them.

  I separate my personal worth from criticism of my ideas.

  I remember that we are all in this together, sink or swim. I focus on coming to the best decision possible, not on winning.

  I encourage everyone to participate and to master all the relevant information.

  I listen to everyone’s ideas, even if I don’t agree.

  I restate what someone has said if it is not clear.

  I differentiate before I try to integrate. I first bring out all ideas and facts supporting both sides and clarify how the positions differ. Then I try to identify points of agreement and put them together in a way that makes sense.

  I try to understand both sides of the issue. I try to see the issue from the opp
osing perspective in order to understand the opposing position.

  I change my mind when the evidence clearly indicates that I should do so.

  I emphasize rationality in seeking the best possible answer, given the available data.

  I follow the golden rule of conflict: act toward opponents as you would have them act toward you. I want the opposing pair to listen to me, so I listen to them. I want the opposing pair to include my ideas in their thinking, so I include their ideas in my thinking. I want the opposing pair to see the issue from my perspective, so I take their perspective.

  One of the most important skills is to be able to disagree with each other’s ideas while confirming each other’s personal competence (Tjosvold, 1998). Disagreeing with others while simultaneously confirming their personal competence results in being better liked. In addition, opponents tend to be less critical of your ideas, more interested in learning more about your ideas, and more willing to incorporate your information and reasoning into their own analysis of the problem. Disagreeing with others, and at the same time imputing that others are incompetent, tends to increase their commitment to their own ideas and their rejection of the other person’s information and reasoning. Protagonists are more likely to believe their goals are cooperative, integrate their perspectives, and reach agreement.

  Another important set of skills for exchanging information and opinions within a constructive controversy is perspective taking (Johnson, 1971; Johnson and Johnson, 1989). More information, both personal and impersonal, is disclosed when one is interacting with a person who is engaging in perspective-taking behaviors such as paraphrasing, which communicates a desire to understand accurately. Perspective-taking ability increases one’s capacity to phrase messages so that they are easily understood by others and comprehend accurately the messages of others. Engaging in perspective taking in conflicts results in increased understanding and retention of the opponent’s information and perspective. Perspective taking facilitates the achievement of creative, high-quality problem solving. Finally, perspective taking promotes more positive perceptions of the information exchange process, of fellow group members, and of the group’s work.

  A third set of skills involves the cycle of differentiation of positions and their integration (Johnson and F. Johnson, 2013). Group members should ensure that there are several cycles of differentiation (bringing out differences in positions) and integration (combining several positions into one new, creative position). The potential for integration is never greater than the adequacy of the differentiation already achieved. Most controversies go through a series of differentiations and integrations before reaching a final decision.

  Rational Argument.

  During a constructive controversy, group members have to follow the canons of rational argumentation (Johnson and Johnson, 2007): generating ideas, collecting relevant information, organizing it using inductive and deductive logic, and making tentative conclusions based on current understanding. Rational argumentation requires that participants keep an open mind, changing their conclusions and positions when others are persuasive and convincing in their presentation of rationale, proof, and logical reasoning.

  STRUCTURING CONSTRUCTIVE CONTROVERSIES

  Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and memory. It instigates invention. It shocks us out of sheeplike passivity, and sets us at noting and contriving . . . Conflict is a “sine qua non” of reflection and ingenuity.

  —John Dewey, Human Nature and Conduct: Morals Are Human

  Over the past thirty-five years, in addition to developing a theory of constructive controversy and validating it through a program of research, we have trained teachers, professors, administrators, managers, and executives in numerous countries to field-test and implement the constructive controversy procedure and developed a series of curriculum units, academic lessons, and training exercises structured for controversies. There are two formats, one for academic learning and one for decision-making situations. (A more detailed description of conducting constructive controversies may be found in Johnson and R. Johnson, 2007, and Johnson and F. Johnson, 2013.)

  Constructive Controversy in the Classroom

  In an English class, participants are considering the issue of civil disobedience. They learn that in the civil rights movement, individuals broke the law to gain equal rights for minorities. In numerous literary works, such as Huckleberry Finn, individuals wrestle with the issue of breaking the law to redress a social injustice. Huck wrestles with the issue of breaking the law in order to help Jim, the runaway slave.

  In order to study the role of civil disobedience in a democracy, participants are placed in a cooperative learning group of four members. The group is given the assignment of reaching their best reasoned judgment about the issue and then divides into two pairs. One pair is given the assignment of making the best case possible for the constructiveness of civil disobedience in a democracy. The other pair is given the assignment of making the best case possible for the destructiveness of civil disobedience in a democracy. In the resulting conflict, participants draw from such sources as the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson; Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau; “Speech at Cooper Union,” New York, by Abraham Lincoln; and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. to challenge each other’s reasoning and analyses concerning when civil disobedience is, or is not, constructive.

  Structure the Task.

  The task must be structured cooperatively so that there are at least two well-documented positions (pro and con). The choice of topic depends on the interests of the instructor and the purposes of the course. In math courses, controversies may focus on different ways to solve a problem. In science classes, controversies may focus on environmental issues. Since drama is based on conflict, almost any piece of literature may be turned into a constructive controversy, for example, having participants argue over who is the greatest romantic poet. Since most history is based on conflicts, controversies can be created over any historical event. In any subject area, controversies can be created to promote academic learning and creative group problem solving.

  Make Preinstructional Decisions and Preparations.

  The teacher decides on the objectives for the lesson. Students are typically randomly assigned to groups of four, and each group is divided into two pairs. The pairs are randomly assigned to represent the pro or con position. The instructional materials are prepared so that group members know what position they have been assigned and where they can find supporting information. The materials helpful for each position are a clear description of the group’s task, a description of the phases of the constructive controversy procedure and the relevant social skills, a definition of the positions to be advocated with a summary of the key arguments supporting each position, and relevant resource materials, including a bibliography.

  Explain and Orchestrate the Task, Cooperative Structure, and Constructive Controversy Procedure.

  The teacher explains the task so that participants are clear about the assignment and understand the objectives of the lesson. Teachers may wish to help students get in role by presenting the issue to be decided in an interesting and dramatic way. Teachers structure positive interdependence by assigning two group goals. Students are required to

  Produce a group report detailing the nature of the group’s decision and its rationale. Members are to arrive at a consensus and ensure everyone participates in writing a high-quality group report. Groups present their report to the entire class.

  Individually take a test on both positions. Group members must master all the information relevant to both sides of the issue.

  To supplement the effects of positive goal interdependence, the materials are divided among group members (resource interdependence), and bonus points may be given if all group members score above a preset criterion on the test (reward interdependence).

  Academic Controversy Procedure.

  The purpose of th
e constructive controversy is to maximize each student’s learning. Teachers structure individual accountability by ensuring that each student participates in each step of the constructive controversy procedure by individually testing each student on both sides of the issue and randomly selecting students to present their group’s report. Teachers specify the social skills participants are to master and demonstrate during the constructive controversy. The social skills emphasized are those involved in systematically advocating an intellectual position and evaluating and criticizing the position advocated by others, as well as the skills involved in synthesis and consensual decision making. Finally, teachers structure intergroup cooperation. When preparing their positions, for example, students can confer with classmates in other groups who are also preparing the same position.

  The students’ overall goals are to learn all information relevant to the issue being studied and ensure that all other group members learn the information, so that their group can write the best report possible on the issue and all group members achieve high scores on the test of academic learning. The constructive controversy procedure is as follows (Johnson and R. Johnson, 2007):