With respect to avoiding conflict, we found this strategy to be most often associated with low conscientiousness, low agreeableness, low extraversion, and high neuroticism. When trying to engage another who is avoiding conflict, a good strategy is to use open-ended questions and wait as calmly as you can for an answer. Many people rush to fill silences with conversation. Try to resist the temptation. If the person continues to avoid or remain silent, comment on what you are observing and end your comment with another open-ended question. If necessary, remind the other party of your resolve to solve the conflict to mutual satisfaction and try to pursue additional opportunities to engage in conversation.
Ury (1993) talks about “building a golden bridge” to help draw the other party in the direction you want him or her to move. This process has several steps: involving the other party in drafting the agreement; looking beyond obvious interests such as money to take into account more intangible needs, such as recognition or autonomy; helping the other save face as she backs away from an initial position. The last step could involve showing how circumstances may have changed since the beginning of the negotiation or using an agreed-on standard of fairness. You may want to proceed slowly and remember that it is important to note that addressing more intangible psychological needs is critical to the process of building a bridge.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we have presented several different approaches to understanding how personality may affect conflict behavior—one’s own behavior as well as that of the other with whom one is in conflict.
In brief, psychodynamic theories stress the view that conflict might induce anxiety, which is likely to lead to various forms of defensive behavior, which can disrupt the constructive resolution of conflict. This approach suggests that in a conflict, it is important to know what makes you anxious (your hot spots), when you are experiencing anxiety (your symptoms of anxiety), and the defensive behaviors you tend to engage in when you are anxious. Such knowledge will help you to control your anxiety and inhibit destructive, defensive behavior during a conflict. Also, this approach suggests that you understand that the other has hot spots, which you want to avoid, and that if the other seems defensive, you might try to reduce his anxiety level by adjusting behavior on your part to make the other feel more secure.
The need theories indicate that it is important to know what needs of yourself and the other are in conflict. Your needs as well as the needs of the other may not be well represented in the positions that are expressed. Learning how to understand the needs of the other as well as of oneself is an important conflict resolution skill that can be acquired. (See chapters 1 and 2 of this Handbook.) If the needs of the other, as well as one’s own, are not respected and addressed in a conflict agreement, the agreement is not likely to last.
Trait theories indicate that people who differ in personality traits also may systematically differ in their approach to conflict and their behavior during a conflict. Again, it is worth reiterating that for most people, situational factors (the social context, the power relation, and so on) are at least as important as personality traits in determining one’s conflict behavior. It is heartening to note that our own research and that of subsequent work by others have found consistent patterns in associations between personality and the choice of conflict resolution strategy. For example, there appears to be a reliable link between low conscientiousness, low agreeableness, and high neuroticism personality characteristics and the use of contentious tactics and avoidance strategies in conflict situations. Similarly, high agreeableness and low neuroticism is associated with negotiation and resolution of conflict. The value of being aware of one’s personality-driven behavior tendencies lies in the implication that through awareness, an individual can learn to control and modify inappropriate behavior for improved conflict outcomes. Continued research needs to focus on personality from the perspective of both parties in the conflict in relation to the dominant characteristics of the situation.
References
Antonioni, D. “Relationship between the Big-Five Personality Factors and Conflict Management.” International Journal of Conflict Management, 1998, 9(4), 336–355.
Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1986.
Bell, E. C., and Blakeney, R. N. “Personality Correlates of Conflict Resolution Modes.” Human Relations, 1977, 30, 849–857.
Bem, S. L., and Lenney, E. “Sex Typing and the Avoidance of Cross-Sex Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 48–54.
Blake, R. R., and Mouton, J. S. The Managerial Grid. Houston, TX: Gulf, 1964.
Bono, J. E., Boles, T. L., Judge, T. A., and Lauver, K. J. “The Role of Personality in Task and Relationship Conflict.” Journal of Personality, 2002, 70, 311–344.
Bramson, R. M. Coping with Difficult People. New York: Dell, 1981.
Burton, J. W. Conflict: Human Needs Theory. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990.
Costa, P. T., Jr., and McCrae, R. R. The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, 1985.
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., and Dye, D. A. “Facet Scales for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness: A Revision of the NEO Personality Inventory.” Personality and Individual Differences, 1991, 12, 887–898.
Deutsch, M. “Interdependence and Psychological Orientation.” In V. J. Derlaga and J. Grzelak (eds.), Cooperation and Helping Behavior: Theories and Research. Orlando, FL.: Academic Press, 1982.
Deutsch, M. Distributive Justice: A Social Psychological Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985.
Deutsch, M. A Theory of Cooperation-Competition and Beyond. In P.A.M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, and E. T. Higgins (eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (Vol. 2, 275–294). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2012.
Digman, J. M. “Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model.” Annual Review of Psychology, 1990, 41, 417–440.
Falk, A. Fratricide in the Holy Land: A Psychoanalytic View of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2004.
Fenichel, O. The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis. New York: Norton, 1945.
Fields, R. M. “The Psychology and Sociology of Martyrdom.” In R. M. Fields (ed.), Martyrdom: The Psychology, Theology, and Politics of Self-Sacrifice. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004.
Freud, A. The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence. London: Hogarth Press, 1937.
Gratch, A. “The Psychodynamics of Peace.” In P. T. Coleman and M. Deutsch (eds.), Psychological Components of Sustainable Peace (pp. 205–226). New York: Springer, 2012.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., and Hair, E. C. “Perceiving Interpersonal Conflict and Reacting to It: The Case for Agreeableness.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1996, 70, 820–835.
Grist, C. L., and McCord, D. M. “Individual Differences in Preschool Children: Temperament or Personality?” Infant and Child Development, 2010, 19, 264–274.
Grist, C. L., Socha, A., and McCord, D. M. “The M5-PS-35: A Five-Factor Personality Questionnaire for Preschool Children.” Journal of Personality Assessment, 2012, 94, 287–295.
Heitler, S. M. From Conflict to Resolution: Strategies for Diagnosis and Treatment of Distressed Individuals, Couples, and Families. New York: Norton, 1980.
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Gleason, K. A., Adams, R., and Malcolm, K. T. “Interpersonal Conflict, Agreeableness, and Personality Development.” Journal of Personality, 2003, 71, 1059–1085.
Kelman, H. C. “Interactive Problem Solving: A Social Psychological Approach to Conflict Resolution.” In W. Klassen (ed.), Dialogue toward Interfaith Understanding. Jerusalem: Ecumenical Institute for Theological Research, 1986.
Kilmann, R. H., and Thomas, K. W. “Developing a Forced-Choice Measure of Conflict Handling Behavior: The Mode Instrument.” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1977, 37, 309–325.
Koenigsberg, R. A. Hitle
r’s Ideology: A Study in Psychoanalytic Sociology. New York: Library of Science, 1975.
Koltko-Rivera, M. E. “Rediscovering the Later Version of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: Self-Transcendence and Opportunities for Theory, Research, and Unification.” Review of General Psychology, 2006, 10, 302–317.
Martin, R. P. Assessment of Personality and Behavior Problems: Infancy through Adolescence. New York: Guilford Press, 1988.
Maslow, A. H. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper, 1954.
McClelland, D. C. Assessing Human Motivation. New York: General Learning Press, 1971.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., and Lowell, E. L. The Achievement Motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953.
Mischel, W. “On the Future of Personality Measurement.” American Psychologist, 1977, 32, 246–254.
Moberg, P. J. “Linking Conflict Strategy to the Five-Factor Model: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations.” International Journal of Conflict Management, 2001, 12(1), 47–68.
Murray, H. A. Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press, 1951.
Neale, M. A., and Bazerman, M. H. “The Role of Perspective-Taking Ability in Negotiating under Different Forms of Arbitration.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 1983, 36, 378–388.
Park, H., and Antonioni, D. “Personality, Reciprocity, and Strength of Conflict Resolution Strategy.” Journal of Research in Personality, 2007, 41, 110–125.
Rahim, M. A. (ed.). Managing Conflict in Organizations. New York: Praeger, 1986.
Reich, W. (1946). The Mass Psychology of Fascism. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Rotter, J. B. “Interpersonal Trust, Trustworthiness, and Gullibility.” American Psychologist, 1980, 35, 1–7.
Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., and Kim, S. H. Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
Sandy, S. V., Boardman, S. K., and Deutsch, M. Personality and Conflict. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, and E. C. Marcus (eds.), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006.
Sibley, C. G., and Duckitt, J. “Personality and Prejudice: A Meta-Analysis and Theoretical Review.” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2008, 12, 248–279.
Snyder, M., and Ickes, W. “Personality and Social Behavior.” In G. Lindszey and E. Aronson (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2: Special Fields and Applications. (3rd ed.) New York: Random House, 1985.
Stevens, C. K., Bavetta, A. G., and Gist, M. E. (eds.). “Gender Differences in the Acquisition of Salary Negotiation Skills: The Role of Goals, Self-Efficacy, and Perceived Control.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 1993, 78, 723–735.
Suls, J., Martin, R., and David, J. “Person-Environment Fit and Its Limits: Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Emotional Reactivity to Interpersonal Conflict.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1988, 24, 88–98.
Thomas, K. W. “The Conflict-Handling Modes: Toward More Precise Theory.” Management Communication Quarterly, 1988, 1, 430–436.
Ury, W. Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation. New York: Bantam Books, 1993.
Volkan, D. The Need to Have Enemies and Allies: From Clinical Practice to International Relationships. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1988.
Volkan, D. “The Next Chapter: Consequences of Societal Trauma.” In P. Gobodo-Madikizela and C. Van Der Merwe (eds.), Memory, Narrative and Forgiveness: Perspectives on the Unfinished Journeys of the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge Publishing Scholars, 2009.
Wish, M., Deutsch, M., and Kaplan, S. J. “Perceived Dimensions of Interpersonal Relations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 409–420.
Wood, V. F., and Bell, P. A. “Predicting Interpersonal Conflict Resolution Styles from Personality Characteristics.” Personality and Individual Differences, 2008, 45, 126–131.
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION SKILLS Preschool to Adulthood
Sandra V. Sandy
Anna Hall considered manners more important than feelings and beauty most important of all. From the beginning, she made Eleanor feel homely and unloved, always outside the closed circle that embraced her two younger brothers. Anna mocked her daughter’s appearance and chided her manner, calling her “Granny” because she was so serious, even at the age of two. Before company, Eleanor was embarrassed to hear her mother explain that she was a shy and solemn child. And, Eleanor wrote, “I never smiled.”
—Cook (1992)
* * *
In early childhood, feelings and emotions are the primary intellectual puzzles that children are required to solve before they can successfully maneuver through the complicated cognitive tasks of later development. If the emotional components of learning are improperly laid in the brain’s pathways, a variety of problems may result. Although Eleanor Roosevelt managed, through a loving father, caring teachers, and a privileged social position, to overcome her mother’s put-downs and lead an extraordinarily productive life, she suffered emotional pain and struggled against feelings of insecurity most of her life. Consistent, small put-downs often have sizable negative emotional consequences for young children, who, during this period of their lives, need to be acquiring confidence in their own ability to influence the environment.
Prior to the 1970s, the study of development tended to end in adolescence when the individual is presumed to have substantially “developed” into the adult he or she will remain for the next fifty or sixty years, with some minor variation. There are also theorists and researchers who see development as highly stable after the age of thirty (McCrae and Costa, 1990; Block, 1977). Others consider adulthood not as an end state but as a continuation of development occurring over the life span (Erikson, 1963; Kegan, 1994).
In this chapter, I am constrained by space limitations and must choose only a few issues and conflict resolution programs to briefly discuss from what is a rich, extensive field of research and practice. Unfortunately, this means that important processes such as restorative justice, which provides an important alternative to punitive discipline in schools, fall outside the scope of this chapter. Omissions on my part are unavoidable, and I urge readers to pursue the wealth of material made available by the authors listed in the References. Nonetheless, I have added new material to the previous edition of this Handbook on two important areas in the development arena: development from a neuroscientific perspective and conflict coaching, an interesting new approach to conflict management focused on the individual.
THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
The pedagogical approach to social-emotional learning emanates from a multidisciplinary perspective that integrates the most compelling findings from the fields of neuroscience, education, and psychology. One conclusion, however, clearly stands out from the converging evidence on social-emotional skills development: early childhood is the time when the building blocks for all later development and intellectual growth are set in place. Many conflict resolution programs for children concentrate on middle childhood or adolescence because conflict, bullying, and other forms of violence occur more frequently at these ages (Warner, Weist, and Krulak, 1999); however, I emphasize early childhood as the time when basic social-emotional learning and conflict resolution skills are the most easily and most indelibly developed. This emphasis is not meant to diminish the need for continued honing and development of these skills throughout middle childhood, adolescence, and beyond.
Although there are many ways to settle a conflict (litigation, arbitration, distributive bargaining, integrative negotiation, and the like), I refer to constructive or principled negotiation throughout this chapter. This reflects a view that this type of conflict interaction best promotes emotional and cognitive growth in children and adolescents.
Finally, it should be noted that both the fields of social emotional learning approaches and conflict resolution education co
ntribute heavily to knowledge about children’s development of conflict resolution skills. Although considered separate disciplines, both approaches emphasize the importance of building the same basic competencies, including emotional awareness, empathy, relationships, communication, and conflict resolution. In both approaches, it is how we learn to handle conflict that determines the positive or negative role it has in constructing our feelings, intellect, and personality.
The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed) Page 65