Chapter 9 Discussion

COMCorrectBook6.pdf

Home >English homework help >Chapter 9 Discussion

Working Through Conflict

Now in its eighth edition, Working Through Conflict provides an introduction to conflict and conflict management that is firmly grounded in current theory, research, and practice, covering a range of conflict settings (interpersonal, group, and organizational). The text includes an abundance of real life case studies that encompass a spectrum of theoretical perspectives. Its emphasis on application makes it highly accessible to students, while expanding their comprehension of conflict theory and practical skills. This new edition features a wealth of up-to-date research and case examples, suggested readings and video resources, and integrated questions for review and discussion.

Joseph P. Folger is Professor of Adult & Organizational Development at Temple University. He is co-founder and current president of the Institute for the Study of Conflict Transformation.

Marshall Scott Poole is the David L. Swanson Professor of Communication, Senior Research Scientist at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, and Director of I-CHASS: The Institute for Computing in the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Randall K. Stutman is Managing Partner of CRA, Inc. He is the author of Communication in Legal Advocacy (with Richard D. Rieke, 2008).

Working Through Conflict

Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations

Eighth Edition

Joseph P. Folger Marshall Scott Poole Randall K. Stutman

Eighth edition published 2018 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

The right of Joseph P. Folger, Marshall Scott Poole, and Randall K. Stutman to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

First edition published by Pearson Education, Inc. 2001

Seventh edition published by Routledge 2016

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Folger, Joseph P., 1951– author. | Poole, Marshall Scott, 1951– | Stutman, Randall K.,

1957– Title: Working through conflict : strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations /

interaction. | Interpersonal conflict. Classification: LCC HM1121 .F65 2018 | DDC 303.6—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017029114

ISBN: 978-1-138-23895-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-23392-8 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-29629-6 (ebk)

Typeset in ITC Giovanni by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Visit the companion website at www.routledge.com/cw/folger

https://lccn.loc.gov/2017029114

http://www.routledge.com/cw/folger

To our parents:

Ed and Virginia Ed and Helen Bernie and Marge

Contents

List of Cases Preface Acknowledgments

Introduction Case I.1A The Women’s Hotline Case Case I.1B The Women’s Hotline Case I.1 Conflict Defined I.2 Arenas for Conflict I.3 Communication Media and Conflict Interaction I.4 Productive and Destructive Conflict Interaction I.5 Judgments About Conflict Outcomes I.6 Plan of the Book I.7 Summary and Review I.8 Activities

Chapter 1 Communication and Conflict 1.1 A Model of Effective Conflict Management

1.1.1 Moving Through Differentiation and Integration 1.1.2 Taking the Middle Path: Moving Toward Integration 1.1.3 Recognizing Destructive Cycles 1.1.4 Tacking Against the Wind

1.2 Properties of Conflict Interaction 1.2.1 Property 1: Conflict Is Constituted and Sustained by Moves and Countermoves During Interaction 1.2.2 Property 2: Patterns of Behavior in Conflicts Tend to Perpetuate Themselves 1.2.3 Property 3: Conflict Interaction Is Influenced by and in Turn Affects Relationships

Exhibit 1.1 Confrontation Episodes Theory 1.2.4 Property 4: Conflict Interaction Is Influenced by Context

Case 1.1 The Columnist’s Brown Bag 1.3 Summary and Review 1.4 Activities 1.5 Conclusion

Chapter 2 The Inner Experience of Conflict

kindle:embed:0006?mime=image/jpg

Case 2.1 The Parking Lot Scuffle 2.1 The Psychodynamic Perspective Exhibit 2.1 Collusion and Intractable Conflict Case 2.2 Psychodynamic Theory and the Parking Lot Scuffle 2.2 Emotion and Conflict Exhibit 2.2 Verbal Aggressiveness Case 2.3 Emotion in the Parking Lot Scuffle 2.3 Social Cognition and Conflict

2.3.1 Social Knowledge About Conflict and Conflict Interaction 2.3.2 Social Cognitive Processes and Conflict

Case 2.4 Social Knowledge About Conflict and the Parking Lot Scuffle Case 2.5 Expectancy Violations and the Parking Lot Scuffle Case 2.6 The Role of Attributions in the Parking Lot Scuffle 2.4 The Interaction of Psychodynamics, Emotion, and Social Cognition in Conflict 2.5 Summary and Review 2.6 Activities 2.7 Conclusion

Chapter 3 Conflict Interaction 3.1 Stages of Conflict

3.1.1 Rummel’s Five-Stage Model 3.1.2 Pondy’s Model 3.1.3 Stage Models of Negotiation 3.1.4 Insights of Stage Models of Conflict

Case 3.1 Stage Models and the Parking Lot Scuffle 3.2 Interdependence Case 3.2 Interdependence and the Parking Lot Scuffle 3.3 Reciprocity and Compensation Exhibit 3.1 Can Conflict Competence Be Assessed? Case 3.3 Reciprocity and Compensation in the Parking Lot Scuffle Exhibit 3.2 The Tit-For-Tat Strategy 3.4 Framing Issues in Conflict Interaction Case 3.4 Issue Framing and the Parking Lot Scuffle 3.5 Social Identity and Intergroup Conflict Case 3.5 Intergroup Conflict Dynamics and the Parking Lot Scuffle Exhibit 3.3 Counteracting the Negative Impacts of Social Identity and Intergroup Conflict 3.6 Summary and Review 3.7 Activities 3.8 Conclusion

Chapter 4 Conflict Styles and Strategic Conflict Interaction 4.1 Origins of Conflict Styles Case 4.1 Conflict Styles in the Parking Lot Scuffle

4.2 What Is a Conflict Style? 4.3 An Expanded View of Conflict Styles

4.3.1 Competing 4.3.2 Avoiding 4.3.3 Accommodating 4.3.4 Compromising 4.3.5 Collaborating

4.4 Determining the Styles of Others 4.5 Pairings of Conflict Styles 4.6 Shifting Styles During Conflict Episodes Case 4.2 College Roommates 4.7 Selecting Conflict Styles Exhibit 4.1 A Procedure for Selecting Conflict Styles 4.8 Cultural, Gender, and Racial Influences on Conflict Styles

4.8.1 Cultural Influences 4.8.2 Gender Influences 4.8.3 Racial and Ethnic Influences

4.9 Styles and Tactics in Practice Case 4.3 The Would-Be Borrower 4.10 Summary and Review 4.11 Activities 4.12 Conclusion

Chapter 5 Power: The Architecture of Conflict 5.1 Power and the Emergence of Conflict Case 5.1A A Raid on the Student Activity Fees Fund Case 5.1B A Raid on the Student Activity Fees Fund 5.2 A Relational View of Power

5.2.1 Forms of Power Case 5.2 The Amazing Hacker

5.2.2 Social Categorization 5.2.3 The Mystique of Power 5.2.4 Interaction 5.2.5 Legitimacy 5.2.6 Endorsement and Power

5.3 Power and Conflict Interaction Case 5.3 The Creativity Development Committee 5.4 The Use of Power in Conflict Tactics

5.4.1 Threats and Promises 5.4.2 Relational Control 5.4.3 Issue Control

5.5 The Balance of Power in Conflict 5.5.1 The Dilemmas of Strength

Case 5.4 The Copywriters’ Committee Case 5.5 Unbalanced Intimacy

Case 5.6 Job Resignation at a Social Service Agency 5.5.2 The Dangers of Weakness 5.5.3 Cultural Differences in Values Concerning Power

5.6 Working with Power 5.6.1 Diagnosing the Role of Power in Conflict 5.6.2 Fostering Shared Power in Conflicts 5.6.3 Bolstering the Position of Those Not Typically in Power

5.7 Summary and Review 5.8 Activities 5.9 Conclusion

Chapter 6 Face-Saving 6.1 The Dimensions of Face 6.2 Face-Loss as It Relates to Face-Saving 6.3 A Threat to Flexibility in Conflict Interaction Case 6.1 The Professor’s Decision Case 6.2 The Outspoken Member Case 6.3 The Controversial Team Member 6.4 Conflict Interaction as a Face-Saving Arena 6.5 Face-Saving Frames in Conflict Interaction

6.5.1 Resisting Unjust Intimidation 6.5.2 Refusing to Give on a Position 6.5.3 Suppressing Conflict Issues

6.6 Face-Saving in Other Cultures 6.7 Face-Giving Strategies Exhibit 6.1 Why Do Meteorologists Never Apologize? Exhibit 6.2 Disagreeing Agreeably 6.8 Working with Face-Saving Issues Exhibit 6.3 When Honor Can Kill Case 6.4 The Productivity and Performance Report 6.9 Summary and Review 6.10 Activities 6.11 Conclusion

Chapter 7 Climate and Conflict Interaction 7.1 Climate and Conflict Case 7.1 Riverdale Halfway House

7.1.1 More Precisely Defining Climate 7.1.2 Climate and Conflict Interaction

Exhibit 7.1 Identifying Climates 7.2 Working with Climate Case 7.2 Breakup at the Bakery Exhibit 7.2 Climate and Predicting What Marriages Survive Case 7.3 The Expanding Printing Company 7.3 The Leader’s Impact on Climate

Case 7.4 The Start-Up 7.4 Summary and Review 7.5 Activities 7.6 Conclusion

Chapter 8 Managing Conflict 8.1 Review of the Normative Model for Conflict Management 8.2 Navigating Differentiation

8.2.1 Framing Problems or Issues 8.2.2 Rethinking How Problems Are Defined

Case 8.1 The Psychological Evaluation Unit 8.2.3 Cultivating a Collaborative Attitude 8.2.4 Moving from Differentiation to Integration

8.3 A Procedure for Managing Conflicts Exhibit 8.1 A Procedure for Moving Through Differentiation and Integration 8.4 Addressing Severe Challenges to Conflict Integration

8.4.1 Challenging Belief Systems That Escalate Conflict Responses 8.4.2 Moving Beyond Deep Transgressions Through Forgiveness

8.5 Dispute Systems: Managing Conflicts Within Organizations Exhibit 8.2 What Type of a Dispute Resolution System Does an Organization Have?

8.5.1 Working with Organizational Dispute Resolution Systems 8.6 Summary and Review 8.7 Activities 8.8 Conclusion

Chapter 9 Third Party Intervention 9.1 Property 1: Conflict Interaction Is Constituted and Sustained by Moves and Countermoves During Interaction

9.1.1 Third Party Mandate 9.1.2 Responsiveness to Emerging Interaction

Case 9.1 Organizational Co-Heads Case 9.2 The Family Conflict Case 9.3 Mediator Pressure and the Intransigent Negotiator 9.2 Property 2: Patterns of Behavior in Conflict Tend to Perpetuate Themselves

9.2.1 Third Parties and Conflict Cycles Case 9.4 Party Process Control Case 9.5 Neighbor Noise Problems

9.2.2 Third Parties and the Overall Shape of Conflict Behavior Exhibit 9.1 Third Parties, Differentiation, and Integration 9.3 Property 3: Conflict Interaction Is Influenced by, and in Turn Affects, Relationships 9.4 Property 4: Conflict Interaction Is Influenced by the Context in Which It Occurs

9.4.1 Third Party Roles and Ideologies Exhibit 9.2 Transformative Mediation: A Relational Approach to Conflict Intervention

9.4.2 Third Party Roles and Climate Exhibit 9.3 Testing Your Own Ability to Intervene Transformatively 9.5 Summary and Review 9.6 Activities 9.7 Conclusion

References Index

Cases

I.1A The Women’s Hotline Case I.1B The Women’s Hotline Case 1.1 The Columnist’s Brown Bag 2.1 The Parking Lot Scuffle 2.2 Psychodynamic Theory and the Parking Lot Scuffle 2.3 Emotion in the Parking Lot Scuffle 2.4 Social Knowledge About Conflict and the Parking Lot Scuffle 2.5 Expectancy Violations and the Parking Lot Scuffle 2.6 The Role of Attributions in the Parking Lot Scuffle 3.1 Stage Models and the Parking Lot Scuffle 3.2 Interdependence and the Parking Lot Scuffle 3.3 Reciprocity and Compensation in the Parking Lot Scuffle 3.4 Issue Framing and the Parking Lot Scuffle 3.5 Intergroup Conflict Dynamics and the Parking Lot Scuffle 4.1 Conflict Styles in the Parking Lot Scuffle 4.2 College Roommates 4.3 The Would-Be Borrower 5.1A A Raid on the Student Activity Fees Fund 5.1B A Raid on the Student Activity Fees Fund 5.2 The Amazing Hacker 5.3 The Creativity Development Committee 5.4 The Copywriters’ Committee 5.5 Unbalanced Intimacy 5.6 Job Resignation at a Social Service Agency 6.1 The Professor’s Decision 6.2 The Outspoken Member 6.3 The Controversial Team Member 6.4 The Productivity and Performance Report 7.1 Riverdale Halfway House 7.2 Breakup at the Bakery 7.3 The Expanding Printing Company 7.4 The Start-Up 8.1 The Psychological Evaluation Unit 9.1 Organizational Co-Heads 9.2 The Family Conflict 9.3 Mediator Pressure and the Intransigent Negotiator 9.4 Party Process Control

9.5 Neighbor Noise Problems

Preface

The Study of Conflict The main objective of Working Through Conflict is to provide a summary and synthesis of social science research and theory on conflict. It offers students of conflict a review of the core concepts and theoretical frameworks that enhance an understanding of human behavior in a wide range of conflict situations. The research and theory covered in this book reflect the many social science disciplines that have contributed to the study of conflict.

Although it takes an interdisciplinary view of conflict, this book emphasizes understanding conflict as a communication phenomenon. It assumes that conflict is something that people create and shape as they interact with each other. Sometimes conflict interaction is immediate and face-to-face. In other instances, it is played out in a series of moves, actions, and responses that occur over time and in different places. This book highlights the interactive nature of conflict, no matter what form it takes. This focus on communication means that readers gain an appreciation for how mutual influence occurs, how language and message choices shape conflict, and how patterns of behavior and the structure of human discourse create important dimensions of any unfolding conflict.

In addition, Working Through Conflict offers a road map for how theory and research can be used to understand and influence conflict dynamics in everyday life. The field of conflict management is supported by a long history of useful research and theory that forms a basis for a wide variety of conflict management work. This book demonstrates how conflicts across settings can be understood by seeing them through a range of theoretical lenses. It illustrates how students of conflict can begin thinking and acting in ways that can have profound effects on the dynamics of difficult conflicts.

New to This Edition We have revised this eighth edition of Working Through Conflict to reflect new developments in theory and research on conflict and conflict management. We also clarified and expanded certain discussions to make this the most user-friendly edition to date, with special emphasis on applying theory to practical, contemporary topics. Here are the highlights of the changes in this eighth edition:

Updated citations and inclusion of new literature throughout the volume; Suggested activities for each chapter to engage students in exploring the meaning and significance of the ideas discussed in the chapter; A new section on the impact of communication media on conflict and conflict interaction in the Introduction;

Inclusion of the latest scholarship of the impact of media on conflict throughout the book; Updating of Chapter 4 to include new research on conflict styles and discussion of racial and ethnic impacts on conflict styles; A revised Chapter 5 to streamline and better define how power is produced in interaction and the role this plays in conflict; A new case study has been added to Chapter 5; Discussion of the leader’s role in shaping climate in Chapter 7.

While we capture the most current thinking about the topics covered in this book, we have also retained older references because they point to classic, core work that has served as the foundation for more recent studies. New, contemporary scholarship is important, but we believe that students should also be aware of the field’s conceptual roots as represented in classic conflict literature.

We consider conflicts occurring in a wide range of arenas, from intimate relationships, marriages, and friendships to group, inter-group, organizational, and negotiation settings. This added breadth makes the book suitable as a primary text for courses in conflict and conflict management, as well as a useful supplement to courses that devote substantial attention to conflict or third party work.

The title of this book is an intentional double entendre. Because its major emphasis is on communication patterns people use when attempting to manage conflict, we hope that the book will help people successfully work through difficult conflicts. The book is also built on the assumption that effective work is often promoted by the emergence and productive use of conflict. It is our hope that this book will encourage people to confront their conflicts and to work through them creatively rather than suppressing or superficially “resolving” conflicts.

Developing Theory-Based Intuition It is often said that people who are good at their work have excellent intuition. Usually this means that they instinctively make good decisions and employ effective strategies to create change or accomplish productive objectives. Intuition is often assumed to be innate—it is seen as a gift that some people have. But in most cases effective professional intuition comes from a broad background of knowledge, study, and experience gained over time. Working Through Conflict is written for those who want to develop their intuition about how to react, interact, and intervene in conflict situations. Conflict is usually complex—it is often multilayered, steeped in a history of events, and shaped by diverse perspectives and understandings. As a result, having good intuition about conflict starts by mastering a broad repertoire of ideas— ideas that create different explanations for why conflict interaction moves in destructive or constructive directions.

Working Through Conflict covers a wide range of essential concepts and theories that clarify the practical implications for managing conflicts in relationships, groups, teams, and organizations. It is a primer for those who might want to pursue professional work in the conflict management field as mediators, ombudspersons, facilitators, or conciliators. It can also help build a strong intuition in those who deal with conflict daily in work and professional

settings and in those who want to have an impact on conflicts in their personal lives within families, romantic relationships, marriages, and friendships.

Acknowledgments

We thank Ann Bryan and David Roache for assistance and ideas related to this revision. Once again, we owe our greatest debt to our colleagues at the Center for Conflict Resolution in Madison, Wisconsin. We are very grateful to Lonnie Weiss for her insight and help with our analyses. We also thank Syd Bernard, Jim Carrilon, Betsy Densmore, Robert Everett, Jay Herman, Jan Shubert, Rick Sloan, Dennis Smith, Tommy Vines, and Kathy Zoppi for their responses to parts or all of the initial manuscript of the first edition of this book. We also thank Linda Klug, Jean Kebis, and Wayne Beach for supplying the transcript of interaction in Chapter 6. Subsequent editions were greatly improved by comments from Charley Conrad, Melissa Dobosh, Mistee Freeman, Tricia Jones, Leanne Knobloch, Phoebe Kruger, Kevin Real, Bethany Sills, Cynthia Stohl, Shirley A. Van Hoeven, and Elizabeth Vegso.

We appreciate the feedback reviewers provided for this revision: Stuart Allen, Corey Young, Michael Comos, and Kathy Krone. We also want to express our continued gratitude to reviewers of previous editions, whose wisdom persists still: Wayne Beach, Tom Biesecker, Lori Carrell, Steven Colmbs, Charles R. Conrad, Alice Crume, Robert J. Doolittle, David A. Frank, Dennis Gouran, Bruce Gronbeck, Dale Hample, Thomas Harris, Gary Hartzell, Tricia Jones, Keven E. McCleary, Laura L. Jansma, Sara E. Newell, Linda Putnam, Susan Rice, Gale Richards, Tracy Routsong, Dale L. Shannon, Cynthia Stohl, Michael Sunnafrank, Stella Ting- Toomey, Shirley Van Hoeven, Hal R. Witteman, and Paul Yelsma.

The excellent editorial and production staff at Routledge, Linda Bathgate, Laura Briskman, Nicole Salazar, and Jenny Guildford have greatly assisted with the production of this volume.

Joseph P. Folger Marshall Scott Poole Randall K. Stutman

Introduction

Conflict offers a mixture of the good, the bad, and the uncertain. On the positive side, conflicts allow us to air important issues; they produce new and creative ideas; they release built-up tensions. Handled properly, conflicts can strengthen relationships; they can help groups and organizations to re-evaluate and clarify goals and missions; and they can also initiate social change to eliminate inequities and injustice. These advantages suggest that conflict is normal and healthy, and they underscore the importance of understanding and handling conflict properly.

But perhaps more familiar is the negative side of conflict. Heated exchanges spiral out of control, resulting in frustration, tension, hard feelings, and, ultimately, more conflict. Low- grade family conflicts, perpetuated through criticism, arguments, nagging, and verbal abuse, not only distance parents from children and spouses from one another but also lower self- esteem and create problems that can follow people throughout their entire lives. Additionally, conflicts are sometimes violent, not only between strangers but also in the workplace and within the family. Sometimes the source of frustration is not being able to get someone else to engage a conflict. If one friend persistently denies that a problem exists or changes the subject when it comes up, the other cannot discuss the things that are bothering her or him, and the friendship suffers. The various negative experiences we all have with conflict are reinforced in the media, where it often seems that the only effective way to solve problems is to shoot somebody.

Conflicts also bring uncertainty. As we will see, the great “unpredictables” in life often arise in interactions we have with others. Conversations, meetings, and conflicts all have in common the fact that they may suddenly move in unexpected directions. Indeed, the uncertainties that arise during conflicts often cause them to move in negative directions.

The twists and turns of the following case—in this instance a conflict in a small office—offer a good illustration of the positive, negative, and uncertain sides of conflict. The conflict in Case 1.1 at the women’s hotline initially exhibits several negative features and might easily move in a destructive direction.

Case Study I.1 A The Women’s Hotline Case

Imagine yourself as a staff member in this organization. How would you react as this conflict unfolded? What is it about this particular conflict that makes it seem difficult to face—let alone solve?

Women’s Hotline is a rape and domestic crisis center in a medium-sized city. The center employed seven full- and part-time workers. The workers, all women, formed a cohesive unit and made all important decisions as a group. There were no formal

supervisors. The hotline started as a voluntary organization and had grown by capturing local and federal funds. The group remained proud of its roots in a democratic, feminist tradition.

The atmosphere at the hotline was rather informal. The staff members saw each other as friends, but there was an implicit understanding that people should not have to take responsibility for each other’s cases. Because the hotline’s work was draining, having to handle each other’s worries could create an unbearable strain. This norm encouraged workers to work on their own and keep problems to themselves.

The conflict arose when Diane, a new counselor who had only six months of experience, was involved in a very disturbing incident. One of her clients was killed by a man who had previously raped her. Diane had trouble dealing with this incident. She felt guilty about it; she questioned her own ability and asked herself whether she might have been able to prevent this tragedy. In the months following, Diane had increasing difficulty in coping with her feelings and began to feel that her co-workers were not giving her the support she needed. Diane had no supervisor to turn to, and, although her friends outside the hotline were helpful, she did not believe they could understand the pressure as well as her co-workers could.

Since the murder, Diane had not been able to work to full capacity, and she began to notice some resentment from the other counselors. She felt the other staff members were more concerned about whether she was adding to their workloads than whether she was recovering from the traumatic incident. Although Diane did not realize it at the time, most of the staff members felt she had been slow to take on responsibilities even before her client was killed. They thought Diane had generally asked for more help than other staff members and that these requests were adding to their own responsibilities. No one was willing to tell Diane about these feelings after the incident because they realized she was very disturbed. After six months, Diane believed she could no longer continue to work effectively. She felt pressure from the others at the center, and she was still shaken by the tragedy. She requested two weeks off with pay to get away from the work situation for a while, to reduce the stress she felt, and to come back with renewed energy. The staff, feeling that Diane was slacking off, denied this request. They responded by outlining, in writing, what they saw as the responsibilities of a full-time staff worker. Diane was angry when she realized her request had been denied, and she decided to file a formal work grievance.

Diane and the staff felt bad about having to resort to such a formal, adversarial procedure. No staff member had ever filed a work grievance, and the group was embarrassed by its inability to deal with the problem on a more informal basis. These feelings created additional tension between Diane and the staff.

Discussion Questions

Can you foresee any benefits to this conflict? Is it possible to foresee whether a conflict will move in a constructive or destructive direction? What clues would lead you to believe that this conflict is going to be productive?

Several elements of this case suggest a move in a negative direction. First, the situation at the hotline was tense and threatening. This was a difficult time for the workers. Even for “old hands” at negotiation, conflicts are often unpleasant and frightening. Second, the parties experienced a great deal of uncertainty. They were unable to understand what was going on and how their behavior affected the conflict. Conflicts are confusing; actions can have consequences quite different from what is intended because the situation is more complicated than we had assumed. Diane did not know her co-workers thought she was slacking even before the tragedy. When she asked for time off she was surprised at their refusal, and her angry reaction nearly started a major battle. Third, the situation was fragile. A conflict may evolve in very different ways depending on the behavior of just a single worker. If, for example, the staff chose to fire Diane, the conflict may have been squelched, or it may fester and undermine relationships among the remaining staff. If, on the other hand, Diane won allies, the others might split over the issue and ultimately dissolve the hotline. As the case continues, observe staff members’ behavior and their method of dealing with this tense and unfamiliar situation.

Case Study I.1B The Women’s Hotline Case (Continued)

Imagine yourself in the midst of this conflict. What would you recommend this group do to promote a constructive outcome to this conflict?

The committee who received Diane’s grievance suggested that they could handle the problem in a less formal way if both Diane and the staff agreed to accept a neutral, third party mediator. Everyone agreed that this suggestion had promise, and a third party was invited to a meeting where the entire staff could address the issue.

At this meeting, the group faced a difficult task. Each member offered reactions they had been previously unwilling to express. The staff made several pointed criticisms of Diane’s overall performance. Diane expressed doubts about the staff’s willingness to help new workers or to give support when it was requested. Although this discussion was often tense, it was well directed. At the outset of the meeting, Diane withdrew her formal complaint. This action changed the definition of the problem from the immediate work grievance to the question of what levels of support were required for various people to work effectively in this difficult and emotionally draining setting.

Staff members shared doubts and fears about their own inadequacies as counselors and agreed that something less than perfection was acceptable. The group recognized that a collective inertia had developed and that they had consistently avoided giving others the support needed to deal with difficult rape cases. They acknowledged, however, the constraints on each woman’s time; each worker could handle only a limited amount of stress. The group recognized that some level of mutual support was essential and felt that they had fallen below an acceptable level over the past year and a half. One member suggested that any staff person should be able to ask for a “debriefing contract” whenever he or she felt in need of help or support. These contracts would allow someone to ask for

ten minutes of another person’s time to hear about a particularly disturbing issue or case. The group adopted this suggestion because they saw that it could allow members to

seek help without overburdening one other. The person who was asked to listen could assist and give needed support without feeling that she had to “fix” another worker’s problem. Diane continued to work at the center and found that her abilities and confidence increased as the group provided the support she needed.

Discussion Questions

In what ways did the parties in this conflict show “good faith”? Is “good faith” participation a necessary prerequisite to constructive conflict resolution?

This is a textbook case in effective conflict management because it led to a solution that all parties accepted. The members of this group walked a tightrope throughout the conflict, yet they managed to avoid a fall. The tension, unpleasantness, uncertainty, and fragility of conflict situations makes them hard to face. Because these problems make it difficult to deal with issues constructively and creatively, conflicts are often terminated by force, by uncomfortable suppression of issues, or simply by exhaustion after a prolonged fight—all outcomes that leave at least one party dissatisfied. Engaging a conflict is often like making a bet against the odds: you can win big if it turns out well, but so many things can go wrong that many are unwilling to chance it.

The key to working through conflict is not to minimize its disadvantages, or even to emphasize its positive functions, but to accept both and to try to understand how conflicts move in destructive or productive directions. This calls for a careful analysis of both the specific behaviors and the interaction patterns involved in conflict and the forces that influence these patterns.

This chapter introduces you to conflict as an interaction system. We first define conflict and then introduce the four arenas for interpersonal conflict that this book explores. Following this, we discuss an important reference point—the distinction between productive and destructive conflict interaction—and the behavioral cycles that move conflict in positive and negative directions. Finally, we lay out the plan of this book, which is written to examine the key dynamics of conflict interaction and the forces that influence them.

I.1 Conflict Defined Conflict is the interaction of interdependent parties who perceive incompatibility and the possibility of interference from others as a result of this incompatibility. Several features of this definition warrant further discussion.

The most important feature of conflict is that it is a type of human interaction. Conflicts are constituted and sustained by the behaviors of the parties involved and their reactions to one another, particularly verbal and nonverbal communication. Conflict interaction takes many

forms, and each form presents special problems and requires special handling. The most familiar type of conflict interaction is marked by shouting matches or open competition in which each party tries to defeat the other. But conflicts can also be more subtle. People may react to conflict by suppressing it. A husband and wife may communicate in ways that allow them to avoid confrontation, either because they are afraid the conflict may damage a fragile relationship or because they convince themselves that the issue “isn’t worth fighting over.” This response is as much a part of the conflict process as fights and shouting matches. This book deals with the whole range of responses to conflict and how those responses affect the development of conflicts.

People in conflict perceive that there is some existing incompatibility with others and that this incompatibility may prompt others to interfere with their own desires, goals, personal comforts, or communication preferences. The key word here is perceive. Regardless of whether incompatibility actually exists, if the parties believe incompatibility exists then conditions are ripe for conflict. Whether one employee really stands in the way of a co-worker’s promotion, or if the co-worker interprets the employee’s behavior as interfering with his promotion, then a conflict is likely to ensue. Communication is important because it is the key to shaping and maintaining the perceptions that guide conflict behavior.

Communication problems can be an important source of incompatibility. You may have experienced times when you got into a disagreement with someone else, only to realize it was due to a misunderstanding rather than a real conflict of interest. However, although communication problems may contribute to conflicts, most conflicts cannot be reduced to communication. Rather, real conflicts of interest underlie most serious conflicts.

Conflict interaction is influenced by the interdependence of the parties. Interdependence determines parties’ incentives in the conflict. There is an incentive to cooperate when parties perceive that gains by one will promote gains by the other or losses for one party will result in corresponding losses for the other. There is an incentive to compete when parties believe that one’s gain will be the other’s loss. Resentment of Diane built up among the other workers at the hotline because they felt that if she got what she needed—time off—it would result in more work and pressure for them. This set up a competitive situation that resulted in conflict escalation. However, purely competitive (or cooperative) situations rarely occur. In most real situations there is a mixture of incentives to cooperate and to compete. The other staff members at the hotline wanted to maintain a cordial atmosphere, and several liked Diane. This compensated, to some degree, for their resentment of Diane and set the stage for a successful third party intervention.

The greater the interdependence among parties, the more significant the consequences of their behaviors are for each other. The conflict at the hotline would not have occurred if Diane’s behavior had not irritated the other workers and if their response had not threatened Diane’s position. Furthermore, any action taken in response to a conflict affects both sides. The decision to institute a “debriefing contract” required considerable change by everyone. If Diane had been fired, that, too, would have affected the other workers; they would have had to cover Diane’s cases and come to terms with themselves as co-workers who could be accused of being unresponsive or insensitive.

There is one final wrinkle to interdependence: When parties are interdependent they can potentially aid or interfere with each other. Parties know at least something about their

respective abilities to cooperate or to compete, and their interpretations of one another’s communication and actions shape how the conflict develops. In some instances, one party may believe that having his or her point accepted is more important, at least for the moment, than proposing a mutually beneficial outcome. When Diane asked for two weeks off she was probably thinking not of the group’s best interest, but of her own needs. In other cases, someone may advance a proposal designed to benefit everyone, as when the staff member suggested the debriefing contract. In other instances, a comment may be offered with cooperative intent, but others may interpret it as one that advances an individual interest. Regardless of whether the competitive motive is intended by the speaker or assigned by others, the interaction unfolds from that point under the assumption that the speaker is competitive. As we will see, subsequent interaction is colored by this negative interpretation, and parties’ experiences may further undermine their willingness to cooperate in a self- reinforcing cycle. The same cyclical process also can occur with cooperation, creating positive momentum.

I.2 Arenas for Conflict This book examines a broad range of conflicts in four general settings. One important conflict arena is the interpersonal relationship. Interpersonal conflicts include those between spouses, siblings, friends, and roommates. But interpersonal relationships are broader than this, encompassing those among co-workers, supervisors and employees, landlords and tenants, and neighbors. Interpersonal conflicts tell us a great deal about styles of conflict interaction, emotional and irrational impulses, and the diversity of resources people exchange in short- or long-term relationships.

A second important genre of conflicts are those that occur in groups or teams. This arena includes families, work teams, small businesses, classes, clubs, juries, and even therapy or consciousness-raising groups. Because much work is done in groups, this arena has been studied extensively and offers a wide range of conflict situations for analysis. Conflicts in this arena offer insights about group cohesion; the influence of climates, coalitions, and working habits; and the distribution of power.

A third important arena for conflict is the organization. Many relationships and groups are embedded in organizations. Organizations often engender conflict when they create issues for parties, such as struggles over promotions, battles over which projects should be funded, and debates over strategic directions. Sometimes conflicts in organizations are displaced; parties angry due to perceived personal slights may express their frustration in ways that are more legitimate to the organization, such as attacking a plan the transgressor is presenting in a meeting. By cloaking their personal grievance in formal terms, they are able to exercise their anger. Organizations also constrain conflict behavior. In an organization that is comfortable with disagreement, expressing conflict is acceptable. In one that is uncomfortable, conflicts may be suppressed.

Finally, the book examines conflicts that occur in intergroup settings. In this case, the focus is on individuals as representatives of social groups rather than as unique individuals. This arena includes conflicts among people who represent different gender, ethnic, or cultural groups. Intergroup conflicts can also arise among parties who are viewed as representatives of

different teams, organizations, or political action groups. In these conflicts, the individual’s identity is supplanted by issues of group identity. Prejudice, stereotyping, and ideologies often come into play (Putnam & Poole, 1987).

The four arenas differ in several respects. One obvious difference is in the number of parties typically involved in a conflict. Interpersonal conflicts are characterized by face-to-face exchanges among a small number of people. The parties may belong to a larger group or organization (e.g., siblings are part of the same family), but the divisive issues are personally “owned” by the parties. The conflict plays out between them and does not involve the group as a whole. Group conflicts are focused on issues related to a group as a unit. The parties generally interacted with each other in meetings or work settings and attempted to reach decisions for the group. The divisive issues in these conflicts are centered on the group itself. Organizational conflicts have implications for the organization beyond specific individuals or groups. They include conflicts between parties from different departments or levels of the organization and may draw in other people such as managers or human resource professionals. The conflicts may be complex and open-ended in terms of the number of people involved. Intergroup conflicts involve parties representing two or more large groups such as organizations, cultural groups, or genders. Issues in intergroup disputes are often carried over from long-standing grievances and conflicts between the “parent” units.

As the number of parties involved in a conflict increases, important features of the interaction change as well. For example, in interpersonal conflicts, people usually speak for themselves. In group, organizational, or intergroup conflicts, spokespersons, representatives, or various counselors such as attorneys, union representatives, and presidents of organizations, are more likely to speak for the collective. In addition, the group, team, or organizational climate becomes important as the number of people in a conflict increases.

These arenas of conflict also differ in the type of interdependence that typically exists among the parties. The resources available to parties shift across these contexts. In interpersonal relationships, parties depend on each other for a wide range of emotional, psychological, and material resources (Cahn, 1990; Levinger, 1976; Roloff, 1981). The resources involved in interpersonal relationships include emotional support; images one holds of oneself as a talented, generous, loving, sensuous, or loyal person; financial security; and the ability to meet physical needs. In group, organizational, and intergroup conflicts, the range of interdependence is generally narrower. In task-oriented units, people are dependent on each other for achieving the goals the group has set for itself, for financial security (if the group provides income for members), and for a person’s professional or public identity (e.g., images parties hold of themselves as competent, fair-minded, or cooperative). In intergroup relationships, individuals are dependent on each other for the advancement and continuation of the group vis-à-vis other groups (e.g., some Shiites in Iraq worked to achieve control by attacking other groups such as the Sunnis), and also for their identities as members of a well- defined social unit (e.g., the sense of self one has as a human being, a Christian, a Hispanic American, a Republican). The different types of interdependence in each arena make the use of power different in each of them.

Although these arenas differ in important ways, they are similar in one important sense: In all of them interaction is central to conflict (Roloff, 1987a). Regardless of the number of parties involved or the type of interdependence among them, conflict unfolds as a series of moves and

countermoves premised on people’s perceptions, expectations, and strategies. Because of this fundamental similarity, many of the principles of conflict examined apply across the arenas. As Putnam and Folger (1988, p. 350) put it:

Theoretical principles apply across (conflict) contexts because interaction processes form the foundation of conflict management. Fundamental to all conflicts are the series of actions and reactions, moves and countermoves, planning of communication strategies, perceptions, and interpretations of messages that directly affect substantive outcomes.

The centrality of interaction to all four arenas creates commonalities across them as well. For example, violent exchanges can occur in interpersonal, group, organizational, or intergroup conflicts. So too, can parties engage in negotiation in any of these settings. Because labor- management or political negotiations are the most commonly reported examples in the media, people often think of negotiation or bargaining as a separate arena. However, husbands and wives can negotiate divorce agreements, a professor and student can negotiate a grade, environmental groups can negotiate a land-use policy, or neighborhood groups can negotiate historical preservation standards. Another aspect of conflict common to all four arenas is power, because power is integral to all forms of interdependence. These and other commonalities are explored throughout this book.

I.3 Communication Media and Conflict Interaction Conflict is also shaped by the communication media parties utilize in all four arenas. Conflict interaction differs in face-to-face, telephone, email, and social media contexts because each medium offers different capabilities. Scholars have been working to sort out the impacts media have on conflict. One influential theory—media richness theory—argues that media vary in terms of their ability to transmit information that will change understanding in others (Rice & Leonardi, 2014).The richness of a medium depends on four factors: (1) its ability to handle multiple information cues simultaneously; (2) its ability to facilitate rapid feedback; (3) its ability to personalize the message; and (4) its ability to utilize natural language. Commonly used media can be ranked in terms of richness, with a ranking being (from richest to poorest): face-to-face communication, telephone call, text message, electronic mail, paper memo, and a numerical table. The basic premise of media richness theory is that media choice should depend on the ambiguity there is in a task or situation. Rich media are more effective for highly ambiguous situations, and in less ambiguous situations “leaner” media are workable and more efficient.

Conflicts are highly ambiguous, so richer media would be expected to promote more effective conflict interaction. Based on media richness theory, we would expect face-to-face communication to be more effective for managing conflict than email or social media because it allows multiple cues (verbal, visual, and aural), personalization, rapid feedback, and natural language. Electronic mail and social media allow fewer cues, and email may also have slower feedback if not checked constantly. Readers who have inadvertently sparked a conflict because of a poorly worded email or text message know firsthand the limitations of text-based media compared to face-to-face communication.

Studies of virtual relationships and groups—those whose members are distributed across different locations (and often time zones) and who use information and communication

technologies for most of their communication—indicate that they are more likely to experience conflict than collocated relationships and groups (Garner & Poole, 2013). Conflicts in virtual relationships and groups are worsened by the absence of a common physical context, which makes it difficult to establish mutual understanding and gives rise to misinterpretations and mistaken conclusions about others parties’ motives. Consider, for example, a case in which one party is teleconferencing from home and is distracted by his children’s interruptions. He may come across as confused and disinterested to the other party (who is not aware of the distracting children), and the other may conclude with irritation that the first party is not committed to their common task, setting the stage for a conflict. If more than one person is at each location in a distributed group, then distance can also foster a “we” versus “they” orientation between the sites, which increases the likelihood of conflict.

While it does give some important insights into the impact of media on conflict, the media richness perspective is overly simplistic. As everyone knows, information and communication technologies (ICT) also give us capabilities that traditional face-to-face, telephone, and written modes of communication do not. Communicating via email is slower, but it also gives the sender time to reflect and compose a message more thoughtfully than he or she may in face- to-face conversation. Hence, when used properly, email may facilitate conflict management (Caughlin, Basinger, & Sharabi, 2016).The lack of nonverbal cues in text and email also may enable parties to focus more on the content of the conflict, as opposed to negative emotions conveyed by eye contact, facial expression, and tone of voice. Perry and Werner-Wilson (2011) report that some relational partners utilize ICTs in conflicts because these media allow them to get their emotions under control and communicate more clearly. Emojis, pictures, and links inserted into emails and text messages add additional meaning and can be used to move the discussion in a positive direction.

Experience with a medium can also increase our skill in using it. Carlson and Zmud (1999) argued that greater experience with a medium causes this channel to “expand” in the information it can carry. Email may seem low in richness to a novice user, but more experienced users learn that they can make email messages richer by using emoticons, emojis, pictures, attachments, etc. A channel can also expand between two people or a group who use a common medium. They can develop understanding of one another’s styles and work out common code words to stand in for complex ideas. People who often text or tweet one another are well aware of this.

Of course, not all capabilities afforded by ICTs are beneficial. Twitter and other social media also enable “mobs” to level online attacks. Online bullying, stalking, and troll attacks operate at a level and intensity unthinkable in most face-to-face interactions. The relative anonymity provided by the internet facilitates—and some argue encourages—such negative conflict behaviors (Lowry, Zhang, Wang, & Siponen, 2016).

I.4 Productive and Destructive Conflict Interaction As previously noted, people often associate conflict with negative outcomes. However, there are times when conflicts must be addressed regardless of the apprehension they create. When parties have differences and the issues are important, suppressing conflict is often more dangerous than facing it. The psychologist Irving Janis points to a number of famous political

disasters, such as the failure to anticipate the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, where poor decisions can be traced to the repression of conflict by key decision-making groups (Janis, 1972). The critical question is this: what forms of conflict interaction will yield obvious benefits without tearing a relationship, a group, a team, or an organization apart?

The sociologist Lewis Coser (1956) distinguished realistic from nonrealistic conflicts. Realistic conflicts are based on disagreements over the means to an end or over the ends themselves. In realistic conflicts, the interaction focuses on the substantive issues the participants must address to resolve their underlying incompatibilities. Nonrealistic conflicts are expressions of aggression in which the sole end is to defeat or hurt the other. Participants in nonrealistic conflicts serve their own interests by undercutting those of the other party involved. Coser argues that because nonrealistic conflicts are oriented toward the expression of aggression, force and coercion are the means for resolving these disputes. Realistic conflicts, on the other hand, foster a wide range of resolution techniques—force, negotiation, persuasion, even voting—because they are oriented toward the resolution of some substantive problem. Although Coser’s analysis is somewhat oversimplified, it is insightful and suggests important contrasts between productive and destructive conflict interaction.

What criteria can be used to decide whether a conflict is productive? In large part, productive conflict interaction depends on flexibility. In constructive conflicts, members engage in a wide variety of behaviors ranging from coercion and threat to negotiation, joking, and relaxation to reach an acceptable solution. In contrast, parties in destructive conflicts are likely to be much less flexible because their goal is more narrowly defined: they are trying to defeat each other. Destructive conflict interaction is likely to result in uncontrolled escalation or prolonged attempts to avoid issues. In productive conflict, on the other hand, the interaction changes direction often. Short cycles of escalation, de-escalation, avoidance, and constructive work on an issue are likely to occur as participants attempt to manage conflict.

Consider the Women’s Hotline Case. The workers exhibited a wide range of interaction styles, from the threat of a grievance to the cooperative attempt to reach a mutually satisfactory solution. Even though Diane and others engaged in hostile or threatening interactions, they did not persist in this mode, and when the conflict threatened to escalate, they called in a third party. The conflict showed all of the hallmarks of productive interaction. In a destructive conflict, the members might have responded to Diane’s grievance by suspending her, and Diane might have retaliated by suing or by attempting to discredit the center in the local newspaper. Her retaliation would have hardened others’ positions, and they might have fired her, leading to further retaliation.

In an alternative scenario, the Hotline conflict might have ended in destructive avoidance. Diane might have hidden her problem, and the other workers might have consciously or unconsciously abetted her by changing the subject when the murder came up or by avoiding talking to her at all. Diane’s problem would probably have grown worse, and she might have had to quit. The center then would have reverted back to “normal” until the same problem surfaced again. Although the damage caused by destructive avoidance is much less serious in this case than that caused by destructive escalation, it is still considerable: The Hotline loses a good worker, and the seeds for future losses remain. In both cases, it is not the behaviors themselves that are destructive—neither avoidance nor hostile arguments are harmful in themselves—but rather the inflexibility of the parties that locks them into escalation or

avoidance cycles. In productive conflicts, all parties believe they can work together to attain important goals

and meet their needs (Deutsch, 1973). Productive conflict interaction exhibits a sustained effort to bridge the apparent incompatibility of positions. This is in marked contrast to destructive conflicts, where the interaction is premised on participants’ beliefs that one side must win and the other must lose. Productive conflict interaction results in a solution satisfactory to all and produces a general feeling that the parties have gained something (e.g., a new idea, greater clarity of others’ positions, or a stronger sense of solidarity). In some cases, the win-lose orientation of destructive conflict stems from the fear of losing. Parties attempt to defeat alternative proposals because they believe that if their positions are not accepted they will lose resources, self-esteem, or the respect of others. In other cases, win-lose interaction is sparked not by competitive motives, but by the parties’ fear of working through a difficult conflict. Groups that rely on voting to reach decisions often call for a vote when discussion becomes heated and the members do not see any other immediate way out of a hostile and threatening situation. Any further attempt to discuss the alternatives or to pursue the reasons behind people’s positions seems risky. A vote can put a quick end to threatening interaction, but it also induces a win-lose orientation that can easily trigger destructive cycles. Group members whose proposals are rejected must resist a natural tendency to be less committed to the chosen solutions and avoid trying to “even the score” in future conflicts.

Productive conflict interaction is sometimes competitive. Both parties must stand up for their own positions and strive for understanding if a representative outcome is to be attained. This may result in tension and hostility as they work through the issues, but it should be regarded as a difficult path to a higher goal. Although parties in productive conflicts adhere strongly to their positions, they are also open to movement when convinced that such movement will result in the best decision. The need to preserve power, to save face, or to make their opponent look bad does not stand in the way of change. In contrast, during destructive conflicts parties may become polarized, and the defense of a “noble,” nonnegotiable position often becomes more important than working out a viable solution.

Of course, this description of productive and destructive conflict interaction is an idealization. It is rare that a conflict exhibits all the constructive or destructive qualities just mentioned. Most conflicts exhibit both productive and destructive interactions. However, better conflict management will result if parties can sustain productive conflict interaction patterns, and it is to this end that this book is dedicated.

I.5 Judgments About Conflict Outcomes To this point we have focused on assessing conflict interaction. This is because we believe it is important to know where a conflict is heading while we are in the midst of it. But the outcomes of conflicts are also important. Parties must live with the outcomes, and whether they accept and are satisfied with them determines whether the conflict is resolved or continues to smolder, waiting for some future spark to set it off again.

The most obvious and most desirable outcome measure would give an objective account of the gains and losses that result for each party. If these can be assessed in an objective way for each party they can then be compared to determine how fair the outcome of the conflict was

and whether a better outcome was possible. We can determine relative gains and losses in more or less objective terms if the outcome can be stated in numerical terms. Some numerical measures use values that correspond to real things (e.g., money or the number of hours in a day someone agrees to work), whereas others simply measure value on an arbitrary scale such as the “utility” of an outcome to a party.

As desirable as it is, determining gains and losses is more difficult for outcomes that cannot be reduced to numerical terms. For example, the outcome of a conflict between a brother and sister over who gets the corner bedroom is difficult to quantify, though a winner and loser can be identified immediately afterward—who got the bedroom? However, over the longer term, the “winner” may discover that he or she finds the room too hot because the sun beats through the windows in the afternoon and too noisy because it is right over the game room. Outcomes, such as bedrooms, are complicated to measure, and while there might be gains on some dimensions, there may be losses on other dimensions. Whether there is an overall gain or loss depends as much on what aspects parties choose to emphasize the actual values of the items. If the winner chooses to regard the sun as cheerful (but hot!) and instead focuses on the nice furniture in the room, outcomes are more favorable than if heat is the main emphasis. Moreover, as our example illustrates, outcomes can change over time. What appears to be a fine outcome right after the conflict is settled may turn out to be negative over the long run, and vice versa.

A second way to evaluate conflicts is in terms of the level of satisfaction people feel about the resolution. One definition of an integrative resolution is that solution which all parties are most satisfied with. This criterion avoids some of the limitations of objective outcome measures because we can always determine parties’ perceptions and evaluations, even when there is no direct measure of outcomes. The satisfaction criterion also enables us to compare outcomes—at least in relative terms—because parties may be more or less satisfied.

Two other judgments that can be made about conflict outcomes concern their fairness. Two types of fairness, or social justice, have a bearing on evaluation of conflict outcomes. Distributive justice refers to the fair allocation of resources among two or more recipients. Procedural justice is concerned with the fairness of the process by which decisions are made to resolve the conflict.

The answer to the key question regarding distributive justice—have outcomes been allocated fairly?—depends on the value system we apply. Thompson (1998, p. 194) distinguished three value systems: (a) “The equality rule, or blind justice, prescribes equal shares for all.” The U.S. legal system is an example of this value system. (b) “The equity rule, or proportionality of contributions principle, prescribes that distribution should be proportional to a person’s contribution.” A case in which it was decided that workers who put in more hours on a project should get a greater share of the bonus earned than should those who put in relatively little effort would be following the equity rule. (c) “The needs-based rule, or welfare-based allocation, states that benefits should be proportional to need.” Universities give out much of their financial aid based on this principle. Exactly what is regarded as a just outcome will differ depending on which of these three systems applies.

Judgments about procedural justice focus on the process by which outcomes are determined and concern whether this process is legitimate and fair. Consider the example of grade appeals. Most colleges have specific procedures in place to handle student grade appeals. In

one college, there is a three-step process. The student must first talk to the instructor. If this does not result in a satisfactory resolution, the student can then appeal to the department chair. The next step is to take the appeal to a committee consisting of three professors and four students. There are detailed rules specifying what types of evidence are required and how the committee hearing will be held. The procedure allows each appeal to be thoroughly considered. The final step involves judgment by the student’s peers, who are in the majority on the committee that makes the final determination. The process is set up the way it is so that both students and faculty will agree that there has been a fair hearing. Regardless of the outcome, if students and faculty believe they have participated in a legitimate process, they are more likely to accept the outcome, and they are also likely to have their faith in the “system” renewed. So, procedural justice can be just as important as the actual outcome.

In evaluating the outcomes of conflict, it is important not to overemphasize one of these four criteria—gains and losses, satisfaction, distributive justice, or procedural justice—so much that we forget about the others. Each of the outcomes may cloud the others. For example, an objectively good outcome for both parties may also be perceived as unfair because the proper procedures were not followed. And an outcome that satisfies both parties may be grossly unfair from the viewpoint of distributive justice. Ideally all four criteria will be considered in evaluating the outcomes of a conflict.

I.6 Plan of the Book The key question this book addresses is: how does conflict interaction develop destructive patterns—radical escalation, prolonged or inappropriate avoidance of conflict issues, inflexibility— rather than constructive patterns leading to productive conflict management? A good way to understand conflict interaction is to think of parties in a conflict as poised on a precipice. The crest represents productive conflict management and the chasm below the downward spiral into destructive conflict. Maintaining a productive approach to a conflict requires diligence and the ability to strike a careful balance among all of the forces that influence interpersonal conflict interaction. Managed properly, these forces can be used to maintain a proper balance and to keep the conflict on a constructive path. However, lack of attention to powerful dynamics surrounding conflicts can propel them into developing a momentum that pushes the parties over the edge.

This book considers several major forces that direct conflicts and examines the problems people encounter in trying to control these forces to regulate their own conflict interactions. To sort out the most influential forces in moving conflicts in destructive or constructive directions, we examine the major theoretical perspectives on communication and conflict. Chapter 1 offers an introduction to communication in conflict centered on four properties of conflict interaction, each of which highlights key influences on conflict. Chapter 2 focuses on the inner experience of conflict—psychological dynamics that influence conflict interaction, specifically emotion and social cognitive processes that affect conflict. Chapter 3 then considers conflict interaction and explores several processes that affect conflict.

Building on this theoretical foundation, we devote the next four chapters to understanding important forces that influence conflict interaction—styles, power, face-saving, and climate— and how to work with each of them to encourage productive conflict management. Chapter 8

discusses conflict management. Chapter 9 turns to third party intervention in conflicts and examines how third parties can facilitate constructive conflict interaction.

I.7 Summary and Review

What Is Conflict?

Conflict is interaction among parties who are interdependent and perceive incompatibility with one another. It is important to recognize that conflicts can be driven by perceptions, not merely by the objective situation. Interdependence plays a critical role in conflict because it sets up tendencies to compete or cooperate that drive conflict interaction.

What Are Important Arenas for Conflict?

Interpersonal conflicts occur in interpersonal relationships, small groups, organizations, and intergroup settings. Each of these arenas differs in terms of the number of people potentially involved in the conflict and in the type of interdependence among parties. They have in common the fact that conflict in all four arenas is first and foremost a type of interaction.

What Is the Role of Communication Media in Conflict?

Communication media influence how parties in the conflict can interact. Some media carry more information than others and this can shape parties’ perceptions of one another, sometimes in productive ways and sometimes in destructive ways. The impacts of media on conflict depend on parties’ experience and skill at using them to communicate.

What Is the Role of Interaction in Conflict?

Conflicts are constituted by interaction among parties in that conflicts only exist in the moves and countermoves of parties. Conflicts unfold as parties act them out. This means that conflict is never wholly under the control of any single party; all parties involved have at least some degree of control over how the conflict is to be pursued over time. One particularly strong force in conflict interaction is the tendency of behavioral cycles to be self-reinforcing, such that competitive behavior begets competition in response, and cooperative behavior prompts cooperative responses, and so on, in a repeating spiral.

Can Different Types of Conflict Be Distinguished?

Scholars have distinguished productive from destructive modes of conflict. In productive conflicts, parties take flexible approaches and believe a mutually acceptable solution can be developed. Destructive conflicts are characterized by inflexible behavior and attempts to defeat the other party. In destructive conflicts, parties’ goals often shift from achieving an acceptable outcome to defeating the other party, regardless of other considerations. It is worth noting, however, that destructiveness and competitiveness are not synonyms. Competition can

occur in constructive conflicts; it just never leads parties to excesses.

What Are the Standards by Which Conflict Outcomes Can Be Evaluated?

We can distinguish four different criteria that can be used to evaluate conflict outcomes— objective gains/losses, participant satisfaction, distributive justice, and procedural justice. Because most conflicts are complex, it is desirable to use more than one of these criteria to judge the quality of outcomes for participants.

What Are the Major Factors Influencing Conflict Interaction?

As we will see in the remainder of this book, particularly important factors are conflict styles and strategies, power, face-saving, and climate. Several other psychological and social dynamics also play a role in conflicts, and we will consider them as well. One moral of this book is that conflict is a complex phenomenon, and that no single factor is the key to effective conflict management. Like all communication skills, conflict management requires us to be aware of the forces that influence conflict and to be capable of working with those forces to channel conflicts in productive directions.

I.8 Activities

1. Free associate conflict: Write down twenty words that describe conflict as you see it. Now look over your list. What are the main themes in your list? What does it tell you about how you view conflict? Have a friend look over the list and tell you how they think you see conflict. What themes do they see in your list?

2. Think of a conflict you participated in. It can be one that was resolved sometime ago or one you are currently involved in. What types of interdependence do you and the other party have? Did media play a role in your conflict, and if so, how did media affect your conflict? Was your interaction with the other party primarily productive or destructive? What were the outcomes of the conflict?

Chapter 1 Communication and Conflict

We have argued that conflicts are best understood if we view them as a form of interaction. But interaction is an extraordinarily complicated phenomenon. How can we get a grasp on what happens in conflicts? How can we use that knowledge to turn conflict interaction in productive directions?

This chapter provides an introduction to conflict interaction. First, we describe a model of conflict interaction as a “balancing act.” The model proposes that in order to manage a conflict effectively, parties must first articulate and understand the differences in their positions and interests. Only after this has been done can they move toward a mutually acceptable, integrative solution. However, this is a precarious process, fraught with difficulties. If parties make the wrong moves, their differentiation may spiral into uncontrollable escalation or, alternatively, to rigid suppression and avoidance of a conflict that they should be able to face and manage. Walking the tightrope to productive conflict management requires insight into the forces that push conflict in negative directions and the appropriate actions required to control them.

The second part of this chapter presents four basic properties of conflict interaction which suggest a number of factors that are important in conflicts. These factors, discussed in subsequent chapters, can move conflict in productive and destructive directions and suggest various levers parties can use to manage conflict effectively.

1.1 A Model of Effective Conflict Management At the outset it is a good idea to consider effective conflict management, the type of interaction that will lead to productive conflict. In his book, Interpersonal Peacemaking, Richard Walton (1969) described a simple yet powerful model of effective conflict management that reflects insights echoed by a number of other influential writers (Fisher & Ury, 1981; Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993; Putnam, 2010). The model views conflict in terms of two broad phases: a differentiation phase followed by an integration phase. In differentiation, parties raise the issues underlying the conflict and spend time and energy clarifying positions, pursuing the reasons behind those positions, and acknowledging their differences. As Putnam suggests, “Differentiation refers to the pattern of interaction that sharply distinguishes opposing positions” (2010, p. 327).This first phase is sometimes uncomfortable and tense, and it may evoke unpleasant emotions, but it is valuable because it helps parties to become more knowledgeable about the issues and the different goals and points of view they have (Wageman & Donnenfeld, 2007). After some time differentiating, the process reaches a

“tipping point,” and an integration phase begins. Parties begin to acknowledge common ground, explore possible options, and move toward some solution—sometimes one that meets everyone’s needs, and sometimes simply one they can live with. If integration is not completely successful, the conflict may cycle back through a new differentiation phase.

This two-phase model of conflict may seem elementary, but it is highly suggestive because it indicates what parties must do to move through a conflict successfully. How and whether conflict interaction moves from differentiation through integration is complicated.

1.1.1 Moving Through Differentiation and Integration

The differentiation stage of conflicts is often difficult because of the seemingly unbridgeable differences that emerge and the intense negative emotions these differences often spark. The combination of hostility and irreconcilable positions may encourage behavior that spurs uncontrolled escalation into a destructive conflict. In a different overreaction, parties fearful of escalation and loss of control may “sit on” and suppress the conflict, which then festers and undermines their relationship. But it is important to navigate differentiation successfully in order to set up the conditions for integration, during which “parties appreciate their similarities, acknowledge their common goals, own up to positive aspects of their ambivalence, express warmth and respect, and/or engage in other positive actions to manage their conflict” (Walton, 1969, p. 105). The simultaneous need for and fear of differentiation poses a difficult dilemma for parties who want to work through important conflicts.

Adequate differentiation is necessary for constructive conflict resolution. Without a clear statement of each party’s position, finding a satisfactory result—one in which “the participants all are satisfied with their outcomes and feel they have gained as a result of the conflict”—is a hit-or-miss venture (Deutsch, 1973, p. 17; Putnam, 2013). Unless parties honestly acknowledge their differences and realize that they must tackle the conflict and work it out, they may not be sufficiently motivated to deal with the problem. And unless they understand their points of difference, they do not have the knowledge required to find a workable solution. Expressing different points of view and dissenting from consensus are often the foundation for creativity and high-quality decision making (Behfar & Thompson, 2007; Schulz-Hardt, Mojzisch, & Vogelgesang, 2008). Similarly, parties’ ability to confront another’s unacceptable or nonnormative behavior is often tied to greater productivity and satisfaction with participating in groups (Urch, Druskat & Wolff, 2007).

Despite its real value and critical importance, differentiation may also lead to open confrontation and competition. Discovering that others disagree or want something that threatens our best interests is frustrating. Others may be combative, demanding and angry, or complaining and insistent, as they express their demands and air grievances. Differentiation may initially involve personalizing the conflict and blame-placing as parties clarify their stands and identify with positions. Due to these and other potential problems, parties may be reluctant to openly explore and understand their differences (Putnam, 2010).

Paradoxically, though, it is not until opposing positions are articulated that the conflict can finally be managed. Once individual positions have been clarified, it is just a short step to the realization that the heart of the conflict lies in the incompatibility of positions and is not the other party’s “fault.” If parties can clarify the issues and air diverse positions without losing

control (a difficult problem in its own right), they can recast the conflict as an external obstacle that they can work together to surmount.

Once achieved, this depersonalized and more accurate view of the issues serves as a basis for commonality. It often marks the beginning of an integrative phase, but by no means does it signify the end of the conflict process. The parties must still generate ideas and choose a solution that, as Simmel (1955, p. 14) puts it, “resolves the tension between contrasts” in the group or social relationship. From this point of view, people can build on the accomplishments of differentiation.

Differentiation and Escalation Although differentiation is necessary for constructive conflict resolution, it can also nourish destructive tendencies. Differentiation surfaces disagreements and makes them the center of attention. It raises the stakes, because failure to resolve the disagreements means that members must live with a keen awareness of this failure and with the negative consequences it entails.

In some cases, the process of differentiation can spiral out of control into “malevolent cycling”—highly personalized or hostile conflict that is not directed toward issues (Walton, 1969). Baxter, Wilmot, Simmons, and Swartz (1993) conducted open-ended interviews with students that suggested that spiraling escalation is common in interpersonal conflicts. They labeled one commonly occurring type of conflict in their interviews “Escalatory Conflict” because it involved increasing emotional intensity and multiple stages in which the scope and intensity of the conflict increased over time. One female respondent provided this example from a romantic relationship: “I might bring up a topic. Then he will get mad that I brought up this particular topic. Then I will lose my patience and get frustrated. He, in turn, will get more mad” (Baxter et al., 1993, p. 98). “Serial arguing,” in which unresolved conflicts manifest over the course of many interactions, is a common feature of many interpersonal relationships (Roloff & Wright, 2013; Johnson, 2002; Koerner, 2013).

This type of escalation also occurs in workplace conflicts, conflicts between groups, and international conflicts (North, Brody, & Holsti, 1963; Garner & Poole 2006; Walton, 1969). As we discuss in Chapters 2 and 3, it is fueled by negative emotions such as anger and hurt, by social cognitive processes such as attributing fault for the conflict to the other, and by interaction processes such as reciprocity.

Differentiation and Avoidance A second, equally damaging pattern in conflict interaction is overly rigid avoidance. Parties may sometimes fear the consequences of open conflict so much that they refuse to acknowledge the conflict and avoid anything that might spark a confrontation. They may respond to potential conflicts with ambiguous statements (“I’m not sure how I feel about that”) and skirt troublesome issues. They may openly suppress discussion of the conflict (“Let’s not talk about that”) and refuse to acknowledge it (“There’s really no problem here”). Even when both parties know there is a conflict, they may simply avoid discussing it, even if there is palpable discomfort with that “elephant in the room,” the potential conflict. Even when someone is being bullied by another person, he or she is often likely to avoid addressing the behavior (sometimes by leaving a group or organization) rather than confront the issues (Coyne et al., 2011; Raver & Barling, 2008). The fear of conflict escalation easily motivates people to avoid talking about the conflict (Pruitt, 2008; Speakman & Ryals, 2010).

The problem with rigid avoidance is that parties may never realize their own potential for finding creative solutions to important problems (Garner & Poole, 2013; Tjosvold, 1995). Trying to avoid conflict at all costs, parties may quickly accept an unsatisfactory solution.

A classic study by Guetzkow and Gyr (1954) provides a vivid picture of the consequences of rigid avoidance. In a sample of seventy-two decision-making groups they compared interaction in groups with high levels of substantive conflict (conflict focused on the issues and on disagreements about possible solutions) to interaction in groups with high levels of affective conflict (interpersonal conflict characterized by extreme frustration, according to an outsider’s observations). They were interested in the difference between substantive and affective conflicts because affective conflicts are more likely to exhibit spiraling escalation. Affective conflict was highly correlated with how critical and punishing members are to each other and how unpleasant the emotional atmosphere is. In essence, affective conflict is a sign of differentiation gone awry. The objective of Guetzkow and Gyr was to determine what conditions allowed groups with substantive and affective conflict, respectively, to reach consensus.

Guetzkow and Gyr found that different behaviors contributed to each group’s ability to reach consensus. Groups that were high in substantive conflict and were able to reach consensus sought three times as much factual information and relied on that information more heavily in reaching a decision than did groups that were not able to reach consensus. In other words, substantive conflict was resolved by determined pursuit of the issue.

In contrast, groups high in affective conflict engaged mostly in flight or avoidance to reach consensus. Members withdrew from the problem by addressing simpler and less controversial agenda items, showed less interest in the discussion overall, and talked to only a few others in the group. When consensus was achieved in the affective conflict groups, it was most often the result of ignoring the critical problem at hand and finding an issue on which members could comfortably reach agreement. If the primary goal is to reduce tension and discomfort at any cost, then flight behaviors will serve well.

When people cannot easily ignore an issue, however, destructive tension can result from their inability to pursue the conflict. Baxter et al. (1993) also found this type of avoidance in their study of interpersonal conflict. One of the interviewees in their study called this type of conflict “don’t talk about it” conflict. When confronting particularly serious issues, friends reported that they would change the subject and avoid the conflict because they did not want to threaten their relationship. Results similar to those in the two studies just summarized have been found in numerous other studies (Nicotera & Dorsey, 2006; Garner & Poole, 2013).

Differentiation and Rigidity In the Greek epic poem The Odyssey, Ulysses and his men must sail through a narrow strait guarded by two monsters. On one side is Scylla, a ravenous six- headed snake who would seize six men from each passing ship to satisfy her ravenous hunger. On the other is Charybdis, a whirlpool that would suck unsuspecting ships into the deeps. Ships had to navigate the strait very carefully to escape the two monsters. To drift too far one way or the other was to court death and disaster. Avoidance and hostile escalation are the Scylla and Charybdis of differentiation, and carefully navigating a course that escapes both is key to effective conflict management.

Differentiation is often threatening or anxiety-ridden, and this makes sticking to the straight and narrow course toward integration difficult. Threat and anxiety tends to produce

rigidity that causes people to cling inflexibly to patterns of interaction that emerge during differentiation.

We will consider the relationships among threat, anxiety, and rigidity in more detail in Chapter 2, but we will undertake some preliminary discussion here to explain the normative model. Figure 1.1 illustrates the relationship among differentiation, inflexibility, and the course of conflict interaction.

Psychodynamics, discussed in Chapter 2, are one source of inflexibility. Psychodynamic theory traces maladaptive, repetitive behavior—behavior that persists despite its destructive outcomes—to a threatening or anxiety-inducing environment (Volkan, 1994).During differentiation parties in conflict are faced with anxiety-inducing pressures that work against flexibility and adaptability: (1) an initial personalization of the conflict; (2) the stress of acknowledging opposing stands; (3) hostile and emotional statements; (4) uncertainty about the outcomes of the conflict; and (5) heightened awareness of the consequences of not reaching a resolution (Holsti, 1971; Smart & Vertinsky, 1977). These pressures tend to lead toward radical escalation

Failure to differentiate and search for an acceptable resolution can rigidify relationships as well. The Baxter et al. (1993) interviews indicated that relational conflicts sometimes exhibit predictable repetitions, and they labeled these déjà vu conflicts. In these cases, the parties enact the same conflict over and over again. In one case, an interviewee indicated that “she and her partner ‘know in advance’ that they will (a) enact a conflict on a certain topic or issue, (b) know how the conflict will play itself out, and (c) know that the enactment will never end in genuine resolution” (p. 97). This sort of frustrating “broken-record” interaction is fed by rigidity and can be overcome if parties engage and explore their differences directly.

Differentiation is a necessary but anxiety-provoking process that people face during any conflict. If parties pursue issues and work through the demands of differentiation without rigidly adhering to counterproductive interaction patterns, there is a clear promise of innovation and of finding an integrative solution to the conflict (Alberts, 1990). The pressures toward escalation are formidable, however, and the anxiety of differentiation can promote rigidity of behavior, resulting in either spiraling conflict or flight from the issue.

1.1.2 Taking the Middle Path: Moving Toward Integration

The key to effective conflict management is to achieve the benefits of differentiation—clear understanding of differences, acceptance of others’ positions as legitimate (but not necessarily agreeing with them), and motivation to work on the conflict—and to make a clean transition to integration, which sets the conflict on an entirely different course (Putnam, 2009). Making the transition from differentiation to integration is not always easy. It requires parties to make a fundamental change in the direction of the conflict, turning it from a focus on differences— often accompanied by intense emotions and a desire to defeat each other—to negotiation and cooperative work. Several measures can facilitate this transition.

Figure 1.1 Possible Responses to the Demands of Differentiation in Conflict Situations

First, it is important to ensure that differences have surfaced as completely as possible. Diverse points of view are valuable in finding and creating solutions and outcomes, but only if diverse perspectives are articulated clearly by the parties (Cassidy, 2010; Gouran, 2010). If parties do not feel that they have articulated their issues completely, they are likely to return to them later on, moving what had been constructive work back into differentiation. There is less temptation to do this if parties attain a thorough understanding of each other’s positions, even if they do not agree with each other.

A second condition that promotes a transition to integration is when parties realize that others will not give into them or be pushed into an inferior settlement. It is an old adage that armies go to the negotiating table when they reach a “standoff.” Chapter 5 discusses how the balance of power affects conflicts and how parties can attain a workable balance.

Pruitt, Rubin, and Kim (1994) recommend that parties be encouraged to set ambitious goals for themselves in negotiation. If parties “aim high” and strive for outcomes that are truly meaningful to them, rather than settling for subpar results, they are more likely to stand their ground and act decisively. This, in turn, is likely to convince others that they will not be intimidated or easily moved, and those others are likely to recognize the need to deal with the party on terms other than competition.

Experiencing the negative consequences of differentiation can also motivate parties to work on the conflict. Sometimes parties must inflict serious practical or emotional damage on each other before they realize that it is not appropriate or workable to compete, but that some other route must be taken to resolve the situation. For example, many married couples seek counseling only after repeated, damaging fights. This is unfortunate, but a case can be made that these couples seek counseling only because they finally realize the dire consequences of continuing in their present, miserable patterns. This last point reemphasizes the paradox of the positive results that can emerge from enduring the often negative and unpleasant experience of differentiation.

It is important for parties to synchronize their transition to the integration stage (Walton, 1969). If one party is ready to work on the problem, but the other still wants to fight, the first might give up on cooperation and restart escalating conflict. The burden of synchronizing often falls to the one who first develops cooperative intentions. This party must endure the other’s “slings and arrows” and attempt to promote cooperation and a shift to collaborating. The transition to integration will be easier if the other feels that his or her position has been heard. Active listening—in which the party draws out the other’s issues and grievances and responds in a respectful manner—encourages conciliation. This enables both parties to build “positive face,” as explained in Chapter 6.

Chapter 4 discusses strategies and tactics that promote integration. One such strategy is the “reformed sinner”—after an initial period of competition, the party offers cooperation and signs of goodwill in response to the other’s behavior; if the other continues to compete, the party responds with competition and then returns to cooperation. This indicates that the party

could compete if he or she wanted to, but instead prefers cooperation. A final condition that promotes integration is a cooperative climate—the general situation surrounding the conflict is not threatening or defensive. The ways in which climates are created and sustained are discussed in Chapter 7.

In many cases, a third party can be a great help in making the transition from differentiation to integration. People sometimes become so involved in the conflict that they have neither the motivation nor the insight to take the necessary actions. A third party has a more objective stance and can often determine what must be done to move the conflict into integration. In addition, individuals often trust the third party and will follow advice that they would not accept from each other. A discussion of third parties and their role in sharpening conflicts and inducing integration can be found in Chapter 9.

One key to moving through differentiation and integration is the ability to recognize destructive and productive patterns, which we will now address.

1.1.3 Recognizing Destructive Cycles

It is often difficult to determine when conflict interaction has turned in a destructive direction. Conflict can develop tendencies in gradual and subtle steps, and sometimes it is difficult to assess the consequences of gradual changes. Conflicts can also be difficult to understand due to conscious efforts by some parties to keep the conflict “hidden”—out of the more public forums in a group or organization (Kolb & Bartunek, 1992). Unsuspecting parties may suddenly find themselves caught in an escalating spiral or persistent avoidance. Once in these destructive cycles, the rigidity that sets in may prevent parties from pulling out. It is important to be constantly on the alert for signs of destructive patterns and to act quickly to alter them. Developing the ability to recognize protracted, destructive spirals is a key conflict management skill because such insight is the first step in taking some control over the conflict. People in conflict must be aware of concrete symptoms that signal the possible onset of escalation or avoidance.

Table 1.1 summarizes several symptoms of when a conflict is heading toward destructive escalation or avoidance. The mere appearance of any symptom should not be an automatic cause for concern. Productive conflict interaction can pass through periods of escalation, avoidance, constructive work, and relaxation. Cycles become threatening only when they are repetitive and preempt other responses.

Once a destructive cycle has been recognized, parties (or third parties) can intervene to break it. The previous section mentioned some measures, and we will explore these and other interventions throughout the remainder of this book. Countermeasures against destructive cycles need not be formal or particularly systematic. Simply making a surprising comment can jolt a conflict out of a destructive cycle. We recall a group member who recognized a fight developing and suddenly said, “Are we having fun yet?” This cliché got others to laugh at themselves, defusing the situation.

1.1.4 Tacking Against the Wind

Effective conflict management is much like tacking a sailboat to move upstream against an unfavorable wind (and steering it so as to avoid Scylla and Charybdis!). A sailor wishing to

move her boat against the wind can do so by directing the boat at an angle, back and forth across the water, taking advantage of the sail’s ability to capture some force from the opposing wind if they are set at an angle to it, as illustrated in Figure 1.2. In the same way, the tensions introduced by the danger points of escalation and avoidance may provide useful forces to move the conflict in productive directions, because they “jar loose” parties’ assumptions that things are going well and encourage them to realize that others may have opinions/needs that differ from their own. Even though tacking a sailboat takes time and does not seem as direct as moving straight to one’s destination, it is in fact the only choice we have when we want to steer our ship in a productive direction. There is no way to get a sailboat to go against the wind without tacking, and there is no way to work through a conflict without braving the balance between rampant escalation and stubborn avoidance.

Table 1.1 Interaction Symptoms of Escalation or Avoidance Cycles Symptoms of Avoidance Symptoms of Escalation • Marked decrease in the parties’ commitment to

solving the problem (“Why would we care?”) • An issue takes much longer to

deal with than was anticipated • Quick acceptance of a suggested solution • Parties repeatedly offer the same

argument in support of a position • Parties stop themselves from raising

controversial aspects of an issue • Parties overinflate the

consequences of not reaching agreement

• People “tune out” of the interaction • Threats are used to win arguments • Unresolved issues keep emerging in the same or

different form • Mounting tension is felt

• Discussion centers on a safe aspect of a broader and more explosive issue

• The parties get nowhere but seem to be working feverishly

• Little sharing of information • There is name-calling and personal arguments

• Outspoken people are notably quiet • Immediate polarization on issues or the emergence of coalitions

• No plans are made to implement a chosen solution

• Hostile eye gaze or less-direct eye contact occurs between parties

• No evaluation is made of evidence that is offered in support of claims

• Sarcastic laughter or humor is used as a form of tension release

• Heated disagreements seem pointless or are about trivial issues

In performing this balancing act, it is important to manage conflict interaction effectively. This is no easy task because, as noted in the Introduction, interaction often seems to have a “mind of its own.” It seems to be driven by forces beyond our control, and sometimes may even seem incoherent and uncontrollable. This encourages people to ignore the give-and-take of interaction and rely instead on generalizations or rules of thumb.

For instance, there is a temptation to say “she is just a difficult person to get along with” as a way of explaining why discussions with Joelle always seem to end in conflicts. Of course, this ignores the fact that Joelle might be reacting to the aggressive presentation of our

position. Alternatively, we might assume that “the best way to win our position is to never disclose it, but rather to find out the others’ position and try to exploit any weaknesses.” This rule of thumb eliminates the need to make sense of an evolving situation because we have decided to do the same thing no matter what the other party does. However, this inflexible approach may discourage a cooperative party and lead her to adopt a competitive stance in the face of manipulation. It is important to avoid these easy paths and to recognize that the key to conflict management is understanding conflict interaction and taking appropriate measures to redirect it in positive directions.

Figure 1.2 Tacking Against the Wind

It is easy to say this, but now how do we go about doing it? There is no simple answer to this challenge. However, about fifty years ago scholars in sociology, social psychology, communication, conflict studies, labor relations, and other fields began to untangle the puzzle that is human interaction. Our knowledge has grown rapidly over the past thirty years, to the point where we can understand some of the general contours and also specific dynamics of human interaction. We are not yet at a point where we can predict it with any certainty, and it may be impossible to get to such a point. Additionally, many aspects of interaction remain uncharted territory—unknown, unmapped, unstudied. But some general principles have emerged, and we focus this book on them.

1.2 Properties of Conflict Interaction Four properties of conflict interaction offer keys to understanding the development and consequences of conflicts:

1. Conflict is constituted and sustained by moves and countermoves during interaction. 2. Patterns of behavior in conflict tend to perpetuate themselves. 3. Conflict interaction is influenced by and in turn affects relationships. 4. Conflict interaction is influenced by context.

By “unpacking” these simple statements, we can discover a number of important points about conflict.

We introduced the idea of conflict as interaction at the beginning of this book, and Property 1 expands this idea by distinguishing moves and countermoves as the basic features of interaction. This suggests that it will be useful to explore various strategies and tactics that can be used to enact conflicts. Property 1 also highlights the importance of power in conflict because moves and countermoves depend on power. As we will see, power is often regarded as a possession or personal characteristic; for example, it is common to use phrases like “he or she is powerful.” In Chapter 5, however, we explain that power is created and sustained during interaction, so moves and countermoves play an important role in determining a person’s power in a given situation.

Property 2 expands on the previous section to focus on the momentum that conflicts develop. Sometimes momentum contributes to destructive cycles of avoidance or escalation, but in other cases momentum for productive conflict management develops. Momentum depends on psychological and behavioral dynamics that parties are often unaware of. We will explore these in Chapters 2 and 3. With so many factors, no wonder conflicts sometimes escape our control!

Property 3 directs our attention to relationships. The prior history of the relationships among parties has a powerful influence on conflict. Face, which refers to the side of themselves that people try to present in public, is particularly important in conflict. Interactions go differently for those perceived to be honorable, competent, or intelligent than it does for those perceived to be untrustworthy, incompetent, or simpleminded. During conflicts people often challenge face, and the drive to maintain or restore it can dominate all other concerns. In Chapter 6, we explore how face and other relational concerns influence conflicts. Other relational aspects of conflict will be discussed in Chapters 2, 3, and 4, which focus on the psychology of conflict, conflict interaction, and conflict styles, respectively.

Property 4 addresses how context shapes conflict interaction. Several aspects of context are relevant. Previous history strongly shapes conflict interaction. Parties bring a history of personal experiences that affect how they act during conflicts. The parties may also have a previous relationship with each other that contextualizes the conflict. The unfolding situation also has a character—generally known as climate—that represents the immediate context for interaction. Climate refers to the general interpretations that parties attach to a situation, such as whether it is competitive or threatening. Finally, organizations and communities often develop normative systems of norms and procedures for the management of conflict. These, too, form part of the context and shape how the conflict unfolds.

The four properties of conflict interaction suggest points at which conflicts can be influenced by judicious interventions. Many of these interventions can be undertaken by the parties themselves. In some cases, it may be more effective for third parties—facilitators, mediators, arbitrators, even therapists and lawyers—to intervene. We will discuss interventions throughout this book. Chapters 4 through 7 have special sections on intervention, and Chapter 8 focuses on methods for managing conflict. Chapter 9 considers how third parties can help manage conflicts.

Now let us turn to each of the four properties, with special emphasis on the role of communication.

1.2.1 Property 1: Conflict Is Constituted and Sustained by Moves and

Countermoves During Interaction

Conflicts emerge as a series of actions and reactions. The “he did X and then she said Y and then he said Z and then …” formula is often used to explain a quarrel. When parties try to deal with incompatibilities, the way in which their actions mesh plays an important role in the direction the conflict takes. In this sense, conflict is emergent; it emerges through the unfolding actions and reactions of the parties (Okhuysen & Richardson, 2007).

Suppose Robert criticizes Susan, an employee under his supervision, for her decreasing productivity. Susan may accept the criticism and explain why her production is down, thus reducing the conflict and moving toward a solution. Susan may also shout back and sulk, inviting escalation, or she may choose to say nothing and avoid the conflict, resulting in no improvement in the situation. Once Robert has spoken to Susan and she has responded, the situation is no longer totally under Robert’s control: His next behavior will be a response to Susan’s reaction. Robert’s behavior, and its subsequent meaning to Susan, is dependent on the interchange between them.

The behavioral sequence of initiation—response—counterresponse is the basic building block of conflicts. This sequence cannot be understood by breaking it into its parts, into the individual behaviors of Robert and Susan. It is more complex than the individual behaviors and, in a real sense, has a “life” of its own.

Taylor and Donald (2003) conducted a study of interaction during nine hostage negotiations and twenty-seven divorce mediations that sheds some light on the interconnections between acts during conflict sequences. They found significant amounts of conflict in both and that disputant behaviors could be classified into “avoidant (withdrawal), distributive (antagonistic), and integrative (cooperative) behavior” (Taylor & Donald, 2003, p. 218). This classification reflects the three different trajectories of conflicts described earlier in this chapter, and we will revisit them often in the remainder of this book. However, Taylor and Donald studied individual behaviors or acts that occur during negotiations and conflicts, the “building blocks” of the more general directions that we have discussed. Taylor and Donald found that a four- act sequence served as the basic structure of the interaction in these negotiations.

For example, one sequence might run as follows:

1. Robert: I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings (Integrative Act) 2. Susan: But you did hurt me, and I’m mad! (Distributive Act) 3. Robert: I just meant my remark to be constructive criticism (Integrative Act) 4. Susan: OK, I understand … but it still hurt (Integrative Act)

In this sequence, Robert makes an integrative move by apologizing. Susan responds with a distributive act that is probably meant more to emphasize her hurt feelings than to actually compete with Robert. Robert then explains more by way of apologizing. Finally Susan accepts his apologies, but again she underscores that she was hurt.

This sequence is also called a “triple—interact” because it strings together three pairs of acts, each of which is called an “interact”: act 1—act 2; act 2—act 3; and act 3—act 4. Note that each act serves as the response to the previous act and as an initiator of the next act. For instance, act 2 by Susan is both a response to act 1 by Robert and a stimulus for Robert’s act 3.

Taylor and Donald’s research indicated that we must consider four-act sequences to

adequately understand what is occurring during these negotiations. If we consider just the first two acts, we might conclude that Robert has made an overture for reconciliation and that it was rejected by Susan. However, if we go on to consider all four acts, we see that Susan accepts Robert’s apology, but just wants him to know how hurt she was. No single act, or pair of acts, is sufficient to understand or to enact a conflict. Longer structures may also help us to understand the conflict, but structures shorter than three are not sufficient. Conflicts cannot be reduced to the acts of individuals, for they are composed of interactions among the parties: moves, responses, and countermoves.

Moves and countermoves depend on participants’ ability and willingness to exert power. Power can be defined as the capacity to act effectively. Power sometimes takes the form of outward strength, status, money, or allies, but these are only the most obvious sources of power. There are many other sources such as time, attractiveness, and persuasive ability that operate in a much more subtle fashion.

In the Women’s Hotline Case (Case I.1) on pages 2–3, for example, Diane might have used the other workers’ guilt to try to get her way, and the workers did use their seniority and familiarity with their jobs to pass judgment on her by drafting a list of worker responsibilities. In both cases, power operates much more subtly and indirectly than is commonly assumed. More generally, a person is powerful when he or she has the resources to act and to influence others and the skills to do so effectively. The third party in the hotline case provides a good example of the effective use of power: The third party had certain resources to influence the group— experience with other conflicts and knowledge about how to work with groups—and made skillful use of them to move both sides toward a solution.

Participants’ attempts to mobilize and apply power can drastically shift the direction conflict takes. As possible solutions to the conflict are considered, the parties learn how much power each is willing to use to encourage or to prevent the adoption of various alternatives. This is critical in the definition of conflict issues and solutions because it signals how important the issue is.

The balance of power often tips the scale in a productive or destructive direction. If a party perceives that he or she can dominate others, there is little incentive to compromise. A dominant party can get whatever he or she wants, at least in the short term, and negotiation only invites others to cut into the party’s solution. In the same vein, feeling powerless can sap parties’ resolve and cause them to appease more powerful individuals. Of course, this method often encourages powerful people to be more demanding. Only when all parties have at least some power is the conflict likely to move in a productive direction.

At the Women’s Hotline, the third party was called in only after both Diane and the workers had played their first “trumps”—the workers by informing Diane of her responsibilities, and Diane by filing a grievance. The use of power could have prompted additional moves and countermoves: Rather than calling in a third party, both sides could have continued to try to force each other to yield, and the conflict could have continued escalating. In this case, however, the two sides perceived each other’s power and, because they wanted the hotline to survive, backed off. As risky as this process of balancing power is, many social scientists have come to the conclusion that it is a necessary condition for constructive conflict resolution (Deutsch, 1973; Folberg & Taylor, 1984; Pruitt, Rubin, & Kim, 1994).

Power often begets power. Those who have resources and the skills to use it wisely can use

it in such a way that their power increases and reinforces itself. Those with little power find it difficult to assert themselves and to build a stronger base for the future. Yet, for conflicts to maintain a constructive direction there should be a balance of power. This requires members to reverse the usual flow: the weaker parties must build their power and the stronger ones must share theirs, or at least not use it to force or dominate the weaker ones. As shown in Chapter 5, managing this reversal is both tricky and risky. It is tricky because power is difficult to identify, and sharing power may run up against members’ natural inclinations. It is risky because the process of increasing some parties’ power and decreasing or suspending others’ is a sensitive operation and can precipitate even sharper conflicts.

Power is a fact of life in conflicts (Berger, 1994). Trying to ignore power or to pretend power differences do not exist is pointless because power is operating notwithstanding and will influence the moves and countermoves in the conflict. Chapter 5 discusses the role of power in conflict interaction.

1.2.2 Property 2: Patterns of Behavior in Conflicts Tend to Perpetuate Themselves

As we just noted, conflict often seems to take on a “life of its own.” To continue our example, suppose that Susan shouts back at Robert, Robert tries to discipline her, Susan becomes more recalcitrant, and so on, in an escalating spiral. The cycle could also limit itself if Robert responds to Susan’s shouting with an attempt to calm her and listen to her side of the story. Conflict interaction acquires a momentum of its own through these self-reinforcing cycles. Such cycles tend to take a definite direction—toward escalation, toward avoidance and suppression, or toward productive work on resolving the conflict.

The depth of the momentum in conflict interaction becomes even more apparent when we remember that Robert formulated his original criticism on the basis of his previous experience with Susan. That is, Robert’s move is based on his perception of Susan’s likely response. In the same way, Susan’s response is based not only on Robert’s criticism but also on her estimate of Robert’s likely reaction to her response. Usually such estimations are “intuitive”—that is, they are not conscious—but sometimes parties do plot them out (“If I shout at Robert, he’ll back down, and maybe I won’t have to deal with this”). Parties’ actions in conflict are based on their perceptions of each other and on whatever theories or beliefs each holds about the other’s reactions. Because these estimates are only intuitive predictions, they may be wrong to some extent. The estimates will be revised as the conflict unfolds, and this revision will largely determine what direction the conflict takes.

The most striking thing about this predictive process is the extraordinary difficulties it poses when we attempt to understand the parties’ thinking. When Susan responds to Robert on the basis of her prediction of Robert’s answer, from the outside we see Susan making an estimate of Robert’s estimate of what she means by her response. If Robert reflects on Susan’s intention before answering, we observe Robert’s estimate of Susan’s estimate of his estimate of what Susan meant. This string of estimates can increase without bounds if one tries to pin down the originating point, and after a while the prospect is just as dizzying as a hall of mirrors.

Several studies of different conflicts in contexts such as arms races (North, Brody, & Holsti, 1963), marital relations (Rubin, 1983; Scarf, 1987; Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967), and

employee—supervisor interactions (Brown, 1983) have shown how this spiral of predictions poses a critical problem. If the parties do not take this spiral into account they run the risk of miscalculation. However, it is impossible to calculate all of the possibilities. At best, people have limited knowledge of the consequences of their actions for others, and their ability to manage conflicts is therefore severely curtailed. Not only are parties’ behaviors inherently interwoven in conflicts, but their thinking and anticipations are as well.

The tendency of conflicts to develop through repetitive cycles is present in all types of human interaction. Any message is based on some, perhaps only barely conscious, assumption about how it will be received. Each assumption or prediction about the reaction is based on an estimate, a best guess, about the other person or social unit as a whole. The choice of message anticipates and reflects the response it seeks, and thus promotes the reaction included in its construction. A predictable sequence of act—response is often established in conflict interaction because each message in the sequence helps to elicit the response it receives. In the previous section we discussed the tendencies of escalation and avoidance to perpetuate themselves.

Perversely, this tendency toward self-perpetuation is also useful because it helps parties know what to expect. Even if they are oversimplified, any grounds for predicting how the conflict will go is more assuring than not knowing what will happen next. For this reason, parties are often willing to make assumptions about the way others will act before any move is made.

By acting on the basis of their assumptions about the other, parties run the risk of eliciting the response they assume will occur. As discussed earlier, anticipating that the other will be competitive can encourage the party to make a competitive move. This is likely to make the other respond competitively, in a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. The cycle feeds on itself. In some cases, this may be helpful: self-reinforcing cycles can be productive if they include a periodic check for possible inflexibility or if they lead to success on “easy” issues, which then carries over to more difficult disputes (Tjosvold, 1995). In other cases, however, the cycles lead to uncontrolled destructive interaction.

The self-perpetuating nature of conflict suggests that when conflict interaction is examined closely, on a turn-by-turn basis, it is often not resolved in any real sense (Vuchinich, 1984). Conflict often unfolds in waves of somewhat repetitive interaction sequences and moves that start and stop in a variety of ways. Repetitive sequences can end, for example, with topic switches, withdrawals, or standoffs, and may resurface later and end differently the next time the repetitive sequence occurs (Vuchinich, 1990). Roloff and Soule (2002; Koerner, 2013) discuss serial arguments, in which the same issues repeat themselves and participants know how the argument will turn out even before the next one starts.

Cycling escalation of conflicts is also evident in social media, especially Twitter. One party sends a negative message and the other responds negatively, and then all his or her followers respond, creating a twitter mob that attacks the originator, with the mob growing as retweets reverberate through more and more Twitter networks. In the case of Justine Sacco, an ill- advised joke with racial overtones sent on Twitter led to thousands of negative tweets in response, many crude and insulting. Ms. Sacco was overwhelmed by the negative response and it set back her career. Social media adds an entirely new, negative dimension to the give- and-take of conflict interaction.

In Chapters 2 and 3 we will discuss psychological and social factors that generate and influence the structure of interaction in conflicts. We will explore the sources of interdependencies in conflict interactions, of self-reinforcing cycles, and of the expectations and beliefs about others that are the basis for spirals of predictions. We will also consider the patterns in coherent episodes of conflict as reflected in stage models of conflict.

Exhibit 1.1 (see next page 30) on Confrontation Episodes Theory illustrates one view of the way in which conflicts are enacted. It shows that the conflict consists in the interaction among parties, and also that no individual’s actions can account for confrontation episodes. It provides a truly “interactional” view of conflict that is also systematic.

1.2.3 Property 3: Conflict Interaction Is Influenced by and in Turn Affects Relationships

It is easy to focus mainly on the substantive issues in a conflict—on the problem and its proposed solutions. In fact, centering only on issues and ignoring “emotional” aspects of a conflict has sometimes been recommended as the best way to deal with conflicts. However, focusing on the “bare facts” of the case can cause one to overlook the important effects of emotion. Conflicts are often emotionally laden and tense. This is in part because participants are concerned about getting (or not getting) what they want, but it also stems from the implications the conflict has for one party’s present and future relationship to the other party. The conflict between Robert and Susan, for example, cannot be fully appreciated without considering the emotional side of the issues and the impact of the conflict on the relationships between them.

Exhibit 1.1 Confrontation Episodes Theory

Newell and Stutman (1988, 1991) developed a theory of social confrontation episodes that is based on a view of communication as an activity in which two parties co-create the episode.

Social confrontation episodes involve conflict over conduct and rules of conduct. The confrontation episode is initiated when one party signals the other that his or her behavior has violated a rule or expectation for appropriate conduct within the relationship or situation. The violation could be something as minor as bad manners or a major relational transgression, such as cheating on one’s spouse. The social confrontation involves working through disagreement over behaviors and thus negotiating expectations for future conduct.

Social confrontation episodes follow typical issues and sequences of interaction. The first issue, which must be resolved before the problem issue can be explored, is the legitimacy of the rule in question. How the episode unfolds turns on whether the rule is accepted, interpreted, or rejected. Once this is settled, the behavior in question can be assessed with respect to the rule. For example, Jill may confront Jack (the confronted) over spending money for clothing beyond a budget limit. Once the confronted acknowledges the legitimacy of this relational rule (budget), questions concerning the act

of spending too much for clothing in relation to this rule can be explored. That is, did Jack perform the behavior in question? Does the behavior constitute a violation of this rule? Is there a superseding rule that takes precedence? Is Jack responsible for his or her behavior?

The final resolution of a social confrontation episode is made up of one or more of the following: A remedy occurs when the confronter apologizes or makes up for the violation or when the confronter exacts some penalty or punishment. For example, Jack may apologize for overspending. Alternatively, Jill may insist that he not buy any new clothes for the next six months. Legislation occurs when parties rework or reinterpret the rule. Jack and Jill may, for instance, agree that they should no longer have a clothing budget. Remediation involves one or both parties changing expectations about the rule. Jill might tell Jack that she will no longer expect him to strictly abide by the rule that “a little bit over budget” is just fine. Reaffirmation occurs when both parties reaffirm the importance of the rule. Finally, no resolution occurs when the parties cannot agree. More than one of these results can occur in any episode. For instance, Jack may admit he is wrong, which remedies the situation but also reaffirms the rule that Jill applied.

Newell and Stutman’s (1988) model of the social confrontation episode displays the various ways an episode can develop depending on the issues between the parties (Figure 1.3).The purpose of this model is to define the confrontation episode and to illustrate how confrontation episodes differ from one another. While action moves from initiation through development toward some sort of closure or resolution to the problem, the pattern of interaction can vary greatly. Although the confronter may perceive that the confronted has broken a rule, how the problem ultimately is defined and resolved depends on the interaction. The model illustrates the major variations in how the problem is defined and resolved.

Figure 1.3 An Elaborate Model of Social Confrontation

Source: Adapted from Newell and Stutman (1988). Reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis

(www.tandf.co.uk/journals).

The model in the figure displays the various issues likely to occur within the confrontation as a series of choices (designated A–F):

A. Is the implied rule mutually accepted as legitimate? B. Is this a special situation? C. If invoked, is the superseding rule mutually accepted as legitimate? D. Did the confronted actually perform the behavior in question? E. Does the behavior constitute a violation of the rule? F. Does the confronted accept responsibility for the behavior?

Based on these choices, a particular episode might take any of six paths (designated 1– 6) depending on the points of disagreement between the participants. At the end of each path are the outcomes that are likely to occur.

The major split between tracks occurs over whether the confronter’s expectations are explicitly or implicitly granted legitimacy by the confronted, or whether the confronted challenges the legitimacy of the expectations. The conversation moves along track 1 (nonlegitimacy), if the confronted challenges the legitimacy of the confronter’s expectations, in essence arguing that the implied rule is not mutually acceptable or agreed upon. For instance, Jack might turn the conflict along this path if he responds,

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

“You hold me to standards that are just too high!” If the confronted does not challenge the legitimacy of the rule, several other paths

remain. On track 2 (justification), the episode revolves around whether or not this is a special situation for which the confronted invokes a superseding rule for the extenuating circumstances. Jack might say, “But it’s nearly my birthday,” for example. This rule is also open to challenges of legitimacy, but this time by the confronter rather than the confronted. Jill might respond, “But I get to buy you clothes on your birthday, not you,” which indicates that Jack’s excuse does not apply and tries to move the episode to a different track.

On track 3 (denies behavior), the question concerns whether the confronted actually performed the behavior in question. The response “I did not buy any clothes, John gave me those” starts the episode on track 3. On track 4 (denies rule broken), the issue is one of interpretation as to what constitutes a violation of the rule. A bid for track 4 might start: “But these are casual clothes. Our budget rule only applies to work clothes.” On track 5, denies responsibility, the issue revolves around the excuse offered by the confronted to deny responsibility for the behavior. “I just can’t help myself when I see a bargain!” is an effort to move the episode down track 5. On track 6 (accepts responsibility), the confronted accepts responsibility for his or her behavior and moves to reaffirm the rule or remedy the situation.

The response of the confronted determines the track the episode will take. Once on a particular line of development, the confronter is primarily left the job of evaluating the response of the confronted. If the confronter accepts the response, then they move down the track toward resolution. If the confronter challenges the response, the episode may jump to another track and a different resolution.

For an example of the range of possibilities, let’s consider the fairly straightforward statement, “You’re late.” The confronted might directly acknowledge this as a complaint, remedying the problem by responding: “I’m sorry. I forgot to set my alarm clock. I won’t let it happen again.” In responding this way the confronted also reaffirms the rule. This episode unfolded according to path number 6, leading to these two resolutions.

Another possibility is that the confronted might respond, “Did I miss anything important?” which implies that the statement is simply a factual statement that he or she is late without a necessarily negative connotation. This implicit claim that the rule has no legitimacy in this situation has the potential to lead the episode down path 1 to no resolution. However, if the confronter continues the episode by enlarging the complaint and the confronted acknowledges it, the episode may follow paths 2 through 6, depending on how the answers to the other questions are negotiated in the interaction.

To give one other example, the confronted may claim that this is a special situation: “But this has just been the worst day for me.” If the confronter accepts the superseding rule that one should be forgiven for being late if the day has been a really bad one, the result of following path 2 is legislation of a new rule, remediation of expectations, and a remedy for the violation. This route also reaffirms the original rule that one should be on time because it highlights that the rule can only be suspended for special cases. If, on the other hand, the confronter denies the superseding rule, then the episode continues to unfold and may take paths 3, 4, 5, or 6.

Confrontation episodes theory illustrates how sequences of conflict interaction are co- constructed by parties. It gives a fuller picture of a point made in the Introduction: conflict interaction is never fully controlled by one party; it is a melding of two or more parties’ actions to produce a larger episode.

The interaction in the Women’s Hotline situation (Case I.1A, page 2) had the potential to drastically alter the relationships in the group. Until the staff openly challenged Diane for not living up to her responsibilities, she believed she was doing adequate work and was regarded as an equal by the other workers. The reprimand called Diane’s competence and responsibility into question, and she realized that the others did not consider her an equal. Her attitudes and assumptions about her relationship with the other workers were challenged, causing her a great deal of self-doubt, as well as stimulating her angry retaliation against the center. The workers’ judgment of Diane also affected their attitudes and assumptions about her. Coming to the conclusion that Diane was slacking off generated distrust for her in the minds of the other staff members. It also made them angry at her, and some admitted a tendency to want to “gunnysack,” that is, pile up a long list of problems with Diane and then dump them on her. Luckily, this never happened, and the third party was able to restore some trust and encourage a more open and understanding approach among the parties.

This case illustrates two levels operating in all communication: every message conveys not only substantive content but also information about the relationship of the speaker to the hearer (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). If Diane angrily says, “I don’t deserve this reprimand. I’m filing a grievance!” to her co-workers, her statements convey two levels of meaning. First, and most obvious, is the information that she is angry and is filing a grievance to challenge the reprimand, a countermove within the conflict. But second, Diane’s message also carries the information that she believes her relationship with the workers has deteriorated to the point that she must file a formal grievance. It redefines the relationship between Diane and her co-workers. Even in formal negotiation contexts, verbal and nonverbal cues carry relational information that has significant impact on the relationship between negotiating parties (Burgoon & Hoobler, 2002; Donohue, Diez, & Stahle, 1983).

This relational aspect of communication is critical because it affects both present and future interaction. It affects present interaction because people often respond to relational messages immediately and emotionally. If someone insults us, we may become angry and want to retaliate. If someone implies that our friendship is in jeopardy because of an argument, we may back down and become conciliatory. However, relational communication has its most profound effects through influencing future interaction. How people interact in conflicts is colored by their assessments of others. The degree of respect team members have for each other has been shown to influence the severity of conflict in work settings (Cronin & Weingart, 2007). Similarly, judgments about things such as others’ trustworthiness, intentions (good or bad), and determination to succeed influence how people interact in conflicts. These assessments bear directly on the relational aspects of communication, and hence people often try to project a certain image in order to shape others’ assumptions about their relationship (Canary, Lakey, & Sillars, 2013).

For example, one person may act defiant and angry to project an image of cold determination that tells the other, “Our relationship is not that important to me, as long as I

get what I want.” If this projection is successful, the second person may back down, believing the first person has no regard for him or her and will go to any lengths to win. Of course, this tactic could also backfire and make the second person resentful and defiant because the first seems cold and ruthless. Attempts at managing image and relationships prompt many moves and countermoves in conflict.

As important as relational management is in conflicts, it is not surprising that it plays a critical role in generating the direction conflicts take. Face-saving—parties’ attempts to protect or repair their image to others—has great potential to send conflicts into destructive spirals. One particularly dangerous form of face-saving stems from people’s fear of losing ground in an exchange. Parties often believe that if they move from a stated position or back away from a set of demands, they will appear weak or vulnerable in the eyes of the group. This concern for face—a concern for how one appears to others during the conflict interaction and the effects this will have on future relationships—can encourage parties to keep arguing for a position even though they no longer believe in it or to refuse to back down even when they recognize it is not contributing to a workable resolution to the conflict.

A second form of face-saving can prompt parties to continually ignore or avoid an important conflict issue. In relationships with a history of resolving conflicts in a friendly and cooperative manner, a concern for face may prevent parties from raising an issue that is far more threatening than any conflict the parties have previously addressed. Parties may believe that if they raise the issue others will perceive it as an attempt to destroy the friendly relationships that have been cautiously protected and valued. This concern for face can prevent parties from calling in a third party when intervention is needed because they are reluctant to admit that they cannot resolve an issue on their own.

A party’s ability to define and maintain positive working relationships during conflict interaction depends heavily on how much concern he or she has for saving face. For this reason, it is important to understand pressures or incentives that heighten or lessen concern for saving face during conflict interaction (Cupach & Metts, 1994). Face as a force in conflict interaction is examined in Chapter 6.

1.2.4 Property 4: Conflict Interaction Is Influenced by Context

One of the most robust characteristics of human interaction is that it is strongly influenced by the context in which it occurs. “Good morning” means very different things when expressed to a casual acquaintance in the hall at school at 10 A.M. and to one’s boss when reporting to work at 5 A.M. The former is something we just toss off as a politeness, while the second is something carefully performed for our manager to let her know that we are ready for work.

So it is with conflict. Important elements of the context include the personal histories of the parties and their relationship, the climate of the situation, and the environment in which the conflict occurs.

History is a complex and important force in conflict. Each of us brings to a conflict a personal history of previous experiences with relationships in general and with conflict in particular. How we have been treated by former managers, for example, creates expectations (justified or unjustified) concerning how our present manager will treat us if a conflict arises. Over the course of our lives we develop a sense of our priorities and what is important for us,

which affects how we respond to conflicts, what we are willing to fight for, and what is not as important. We also develop “hot buttons,” sensitivities that can trigger conflicts when “pressed” by others. Our history is the source of our hopes and dreams, our aspirations about what we want from life, where we are going, and how we should be treated. These and other aspects of our history affect how we respond to conflict.

Research also suggests that our prior experience fosters conflicting styles, general tendencies to respond to conflicts in particular ways. For instance, some people tend to respond to conflicts competitively, while others withdraw, and still others see opportunity in conflicts. Styles are influenced by personality traits such as aggressiveness or passivity, but they are much more strongly influenced by our experiences with past conflicts, with what worked and what did not work for us in these situations.

Another important part of personal history is our experience with the other party. If the other betrayed us in the past, for example, we are likely to interpret a friendly overture very differently than if the other has been a steadfast and loyal friend for years. Here is where history and the cyclic nature of conflict come together. Negative cycles of conflict with another party predispose us to approach the other with a negative mindset, while positive cycles have the opposite effect.

Context also included the outside environment related to the conflict. Environment is a very broad term that refers to characteristics of the society and social units that may affect the conflict. Where the conflict occurs determines what features of the environment affect it. A conflict between siblings is affected strongly by the nature of their family, including family history and norms about how conflict should be handled. How the sibling conflict plays out also depends on whether it occurs in the home or outside of it because family influence is likely to be stronger in the former case, and the familiarity of the home setting may affect the conflict in subtle ways. A conflict on the job is affected by the character of the organization in which it occurs. The prevailing management style, attitudes toward airing differences and grievances, formal and informal systems for resolving conflict in the organization, and other factors affect the conflict.

History and environment are filtered through the immediate context in which a conflict interaction unfolds. The nature of this immediate context is often referred to as the climate of the situation, invoking an “atmospheric” metaphor. For example, most of us have felt the tension in the air during a charged confrontation between two people. This generalized sense of the situation is what the concept of climate attempts to capture. Climates may be threatening or safe, warm or cold. They are, as we will see, generated and sustained by the parties to the conflict, as well as by the broader environment surrounding the conflict. Though it may seem intangible, climate provides important information about how conflict is likely to be handled and may steer conflict interaction in particular directions (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008). For example, if the climate of an organization seems cold and unsupportive, subordinates may be reluctant to raise issues with their superiors, on the assumption that they will be rejected outright. When a conflict does break out in such an organization, it is likely to be handled in ways that are not positive or supportive for those involved. For instance, a manager may reprimand an employee for bringing up a complaint, implicitly sending a message to other employees that it is not safe to differ with management.

Climates are not fixed, but may vary, even within a single conflict. Case 1.1 illustrates the

impact of a change in climate.

Case Study 1.1 The Columnist’s Brown Bag

Imagine yourself as a student attending this seminar. How would you have recognized what was going on?

An editorial columnist from the New York Times was asked to participate in one of a series of brown-bag discussions hosted by a Department of Journalism at a large university. Faculty, students, and journalists from the community attended these noon- hour seminars. Although some speakers in this series of talks gave formal presentations and then left a few minutes for questions afterward, this columnist said, at the outset of his talk, that although he had prepared comments on a number of different topics he would rather spend the entire hour responding to questions.

Within a few minutes after the session began, a climate of open communication prevailed. The speaker responded to a wide range of questions. People asked about national economic policy, press coverage of news events, politically based indictments of the press, and the use and misuse of the term “the media.” Despite the potentially controversial nature of many of these issues, there was an expectation set in the group that the questions would seek information or opinions from the columnist, who had more than thirty years of experience at the prestigious newspaper. In his initial answers, the speaker told amusing anecdotes, gave background information about recent news events, and offered unmuted commentary on key issues. The atmosphere was relaxed, almost reverent, and the speaker himself continued to eat his brown-bag lunch as he spoke.

During the last ten minutes of the question–and–answer discussion, a student sitting in the back of the room sat up and leaned forward in his chair. Speaking more loudly than anyone else during the previous forty-five minutes, he said he had a question about editorial responsibility. He said that the Times ran a story about atrocities in an African nation, but the paper made no editorial comment on the killings until three years after they had occurred. He wanted to know if the paper had an editorial responsibility to comment on this event at the time it happened. It soon became clear that both the student asking the question and the columnist knew, as the question was asked, that American arms had been used in the killings. The student did not, however, explicitly mention this when he asked the question.

Almost immediately, a journalism professor, who had introduced the speaker and was instrumental in getting him to visit the campus, defended the paper’s policy before the guest speaker had a chance to respond. Neither this professor nor anyone else in the group had previously interrupted the question–answer–question format that the group had adopted; no one had previously made a comment in response to any other question. The professor was visibly upset by the student’s question, mentioned that he had worked on the paper himself at the time the story broke, and contended that the editorial decision was justified because insufficient information was available about the incident for quite some time. The student responded with a pointed declaration of mistrust in the paper. The columnist then took the floor and commented that, although the paper had made

several editorial blunders during the years he worked at the paper, he could not accept the accusation that editorial comments were withheld because U.S. arms were involved. There were, he said, too many editorials to the contrary in the paper.

As this exchange occurred, others in the room seemed uncomfortable and tense. Some turned to look back at the challenger, some engaged in side conversations, and a few smiled uncomfortably at each other. A second professor interrupted the columnist and said, in a somewhat self-conscious tone of voice, “We had better leave the seminar room because another class has to meet in it soon.”

Discussion Questions

There was a noticeable shift in climate in this discussion. How did the shift come about? How did the shift in climate affect the interaction in this seminar? Suppose the seminar had begun with a confrontational climate. What kind of event might cause the climate to shift toward a more relaxed direction?

The student’s question and the professor’s initial response changed the established climate in midstream, with significant effects on subsequent interaction. Prior to the question this was a normal seminar, with a climate of objective interest and scholarly respect. The expectation that the purpose of questions was to seek information or advice from the speaker was redefined by the student’s question. The student challenged the politics behind the story and assumed that the speaker would defend himself. The professor’s defense of the Times reinforced the climate of confrontation and shifted the tone of the interaction to challenge and response. The rest of the group may have resented the change in tone, yet in some ways they facilitated the change by disrupting the seminar’s format themselves. The shift in climate resulted in new ways of interacting for everyone in attendance. You can judge for yourself whether it was an improvement. Chapter 7 discusses the role of climate in conflict.

1.3 Summary and Review

What Is Effective Conflict Management?

There are a number of excellent models for conflict management, and a particularly useful one distinguishes two stages in a well-managed conflict: a differentiation stage and an integration stage. When differentiation is handled effectively, parties are able to express their positions and emotions. At the end of effective differentiation, parties have come to understand others’ positions (though they might not agree with them), to recognize the legitimacy of others, and to have the motivation to resolve the conflict. During effective integration parties explore a range of solutions, develop a solution that meets the needs of all, and work out a means of implementing the resolution. In order to work through these two stages, parties have to prevent the uncontrolled avoidance and escalation cycles mentioned in the Introduction. This

requires them to perform a tricky balancing act in which they have to air disagreements, but they cannot let their interactions get too far out of control.

What Are the Dangers in Differentiation?

Differentiation initially personalizes the conflict and often involves expression of intense and negative emotions. There is a danger that this can either infuriate parties, resulting in escalation, or terrify them, resulting in rigid avoidance. As long as parties can avoid rigid, inflexible, knee-jerk responses to differentiation they have a good chance of navigating to an effective integration phase. As unpleasant as it may be, differentiation is important because it provides the basis for real solutions later on; if parties understand and respect their differences they have the best chance of working toward a mutually beneficial solution.

What Causes Rigidity in Conflict Interaction?

Anxieties about differences and emotions in conflicts, as well as the uncertainties about the outcome of the conflict, tend to produce rigid and inflexible behavior in conflicts.

How Do Parties Manage the Transition Between Differentiation and Integration as They Work Through Their Conflicts?

The transition is easier to make: (a) if parties feel that they have been able to express their positions fully; (b) if they believe that they cannot get what they want by forcing the other or by avoiding conflict altogether; and (c) if they synchronize their cooperative initiatives. A third party is sometimes useful to help move the conflict from differentiation to integration.

How Do We Recognize When Destructive Cycles Have Set In?

Table 1.1 summarizes several symptoms or indicators of destructive conflict interaction. Signs of avoidance cycles include quick acceptance of proposals, low levels of involvement, and discussion of safe issues. Signs of escalation cycles include threats, difficulty in defining the issues, and sarcasm.

Are There Some Basic Principles of Interaction That Can Help in Understanding Conflict?

In this chapter, we have defined four basic properties of conflict interaction that highlight the role of communication in conflict. Together, these properties indicate a web of variables and processes that influence conflict.

What Does It Mean to Say That Conflict Is Constituted by Moves and Countermoves in Interaction?

This property builds on the argument from the Introduction. Conflicts exist not because of differences between parties but because of the actions parties take in responding to their

differences. These moves and countermoves create and define the conflict, and they sustain it insofar as parties continue to make more moves and countermoves. This underscores the importance of power in interpersonal conflicts because the types and effectiveness of moves depend on how skillfully parties use their power.

Why Do Patterns of Behavior in Conflicts Tend to Perpetuate Themselves?

Conflicts tend to be perpetuated by self-reinforcing cycles of behavior. They are linked to the human tendency to reciprocate behavior, and also to predictions about others’ responses that lead to behavior that elicits the expected response (creating self-fulfilling prophecies). These self-perpetuating patterns give conflicts a momentum of their own and may make it difficult to change the direction of conflicts.

What Role Do Relationships Play in Conflict Interaction?

Conflict obviously can have profound effects on relationships. How conflicts unfold also depends on prior relationships among the parties. A particularly important dimension of relationships in conflict is face—the image a person wants to present to others. Efforts to create and sustain positive face, or to save face in response to perceived attacks, can exert profound influence on conflicts.

How Does the Context Influence Conflict Interaction?

Three elements of the context affect conflict. Personal and relational history shapes parties’ expectations about and reactions to one another. They also influence their general attitudes toward conflict and how they tend to respond to conflicts. Shared interpretations of the conflict situation have been termed the climate of conflict interaction. Climates are composed of generalized beliefs about the situation, including whether it calls for competition or cooperation and how safe it is on a psychological or emotional level. Climates are produced and sustained by interaction among the parties to the conflict and by other important actors in the situation. Finally, those elements of the environment that are relevant to the conflict affect conflict interaction. Different sets of environmental features are relevant to each particular conflict.

How Does Confrontation Episodes Theory Model Conflict?

This theory proposes a set of decision points, organized around key issues that are likely to occur during a confrontation. Episodes can follow several tracks, including nonlegitimacy, justification, denial of behavior, denial of broken rules, denial of responsibility, and acceptance of responsibility. This theory models conflict at the move–countermove level and provides a framework to help us understand the logic behind moves and countermoves. It represents a common way in which parties’ rule systems mesh during conflicts.

1.4 Activities

1. Find a short video clip of a conflict and analyze it using concepts from this chapter. Does the conflict interaction exhibit uncontrolled escalation or avoidance? Does it go through differentiation and integration stages? What moves and countermoves do parties use and how do these moves affect the course of interaction in the conflict? How do relationships among the parties influence the conflict? Do you think the conflict interaction changed their relationship? What is the climate of the situation and how does it affect the conflict interaction.

2. When you looked for conflict clips, we expect that it was difficult for you to find clips that showed conflict avoidance. List some reasons why cases of avoidance are often not thought of as conflicts.

1.5 Conclusion Although shouting matches or heated discussions are often the first images that come to mind when we think of conflict, this book advances a more broadly based understanding of conflict interaction. Active suppression of issues, an exchange over who is an authority on a particular issue, a round of comments explaining positions to a third party, a discussion of the decision- making procedures, or a series of comments that back away from a stand so that one member is allowed to “win” a point are all forms of conflict interaction as well. Conflict interaction is any exchange of messages that represents an attempt by participants to address some incompatibility.

We have presented a normative model for conflict management that will continue to be a common touchpoint throughout this book. This model argues that conflicts must develop through two stages, differentiation and integration, to be properly managed or resolved. In both stages the parties do some important work necessary to deal with a conflict, and the functions of the differentiation stage must be accomplished before effective integration occurs. Differentiation must be conscientiously and carefully managed, because it may instead lead to spiraling escalation or rigid avoidance, both of which keep the conflict from moving into the integration stage.

The two-stage model may look neat and straightforward. However, you should not be misled into thinking that conflicts are always divided into two easily recognizable stages. As we will see throughout this book, conflicts are often messy. We may start with spiraling escalation and only after a time get true differentiation, which then leads to an attempt at integration, which then breaks down as escalation occurs again, and then finally moves into true integration. There are many permutations of this theme. Conflicts are neither simple nor straightforward. We advance the normative two-stage model as a guide to tell you what you must do to work with conflict effectively, not as an accurate description of conflict.

This chapter also focused on four properties of conflict interaction. These properties draw a complex net of ideas which we will explore in the remainder of this book. We will constantly return to the point that conflict interaction, though it may appear to be straightforward, is actually quite complex and can only be understood by analyzing its flows and the forces that shape them. Conflict, like any other form of behavior, can best be understood at the level of concrete interaction where moves and countermoves take many forms and unfold in diverse episodes (yet maintain some level of coherence), where interaction patterns tend to perpetuate

themselves in destructive and constructive cycles, and where messages define and alter relationships among people.

This book is about conflict, of course, but it is also about change. Because conflicts are rooted in differences and incompatible interests, conflict always confronts participants with the possibility of change (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008). Indeed, that differences arise at all is a signal of a need for adjustment, adaptation, and change. In a very real sense, as a couple, group, or organization manages their conflicts, so too do they deal with the need to change.

Chapter 2 The Inner Experience of Conflict

Recall the Women’s Hotline Case (Case I.1, pages 2–3). The conflict and how it was resolved were strongly influenced by parties’ interpretations of one another’s behavior and by assumptions each side made about the other. For instance, several staff members believed that Diane was not willing to bear her share of the work, while Diane drew the conclusion that the staff was not sympathetic with her problems. The staff made incorrect inferences about Diane’s motivations in asking for a leave of absence. Diane’s anger at their rejection led her to file a grievance. Sharing their doubts and fears encouraged members to reinterpret Diane’s behavior in more generous terms. It is clear that the conflict was strongly influenced by what was going on inside parties’ heads, by emotion and cognition. While conflict is constituted in interaction, the behavior that constitutes that interaction has its origins in individual cognition and affective processes. So it is to the inner experience of conflict that we now turn.

In this chapter we explore the psychological processes that influence conflict interaction. We consider psychological dynamics that affect our perception and interpretation of conflicts, how we process conflict-related information, and how we behave during conflicts. Some of these dynamics are rooted in deep-seated motivations and emotional reactions, and others in our beliefs and thought processes. Thinking and feeling are often regarded as quite different processes, but as we will see, they affect each other in important ways.

This chapter is divided into four sections. The first reviews psychodynamic theory, a psychological theory that influenced classic theories of conflict. Section two explores the role of emotions in conflict. Cognitive processes that influence our interpretations of and reactions to conflicts are the subject of the third section. The final section considers how psychodynamics, emotions, and cognitive processes interact to affect conflict interaction.

To illustrate how the different factors discussed in this chapter figure in conflict, they will be used to illuminate the same conflict case, the Parking Lot Scuffle. Before diving into the next section, refer to Case 2.1, which reviews a conflict between two relative strangers as it was captured by an observer. This is the actual dialogue recorded between the parties; only phrases that some readers might find offensive have been changed.

Case Study 2.1 The Parking Lot Scuffle

Imagine yourself as Jay. What assumptions are you making about Tim as the conflict unfolds?

Jay drove to work alone every weekday. On this particular Monday morning he arrived in his office parking lot a few minutes before 9 AM. He had several things on his

mind and was not prepared to see a small moped parked in his reserved spot. In fact, because the moped was set back deep in the spot and between cars, he could not see it until he made the turn into the space. Jay slammed on the brakes but failed to stop before hitting the scooter. The moped wobbled and then fell to the ground. Jay backed up his car and then placed the car in park. He got out and moved quickly to examine the results. He was surveying the damage done to his own bumper when Tim, whom he recognized but could not name, approached him on the run. The following interaction ensued: 1 Tim: What’s your problem? What the hell did you do to my Honda? I

said, What did you do? 2 Jay: I drove into my spot and didn’t see your bike. What was it doing

parked there? 3 Tim: Look, my tire’s flat. I can’t move the wheel. Crushed in and doesn’t

move. 4 Jay: I didn’t see it until I was on top of it. 5 Tim: You are going to have to pay for this. I can’t afford this. 6 Jay: What was it doing in a parking space? 7 Tim: What’s your problem? It was parked. Look at the wheel. You came

around pretty good. 8 Jay: Listen, this is my spot. I didn’t see it, and it shouldn’t have been

there. You’re lucky I stopped when I did. Look at my bumper. What was it doing there?

9 Tim: You ass. Who cares whose spot it is? Some jerk like you drives over my Honda and says, “This is my spot. “ I don’t care who you are. You will fix my Honda!

10 Jay: You are the one with a problem. Do you work here? 11 Tim: What does that have to do with anything? Stop looking at your

bumper; it looks fine. I want your driver’s license and insurance. 12 Jay: Who in the hell do you think you are? (Starts walking away.) 13 Tim: You are not going anywhere. (Grabs Jay’s arm.) 14 Jay: Let go of me. You are screwed. I’m calling the police. (Turns to move

toward the office.) 15 Tim slugs Jay from behind. The two scuffle for a few moments until

others arrive to break them apart.

Discussion Questions

Why did this conflict escalate to physical violence? What assumptions about interaction and about conflict does your answer reveal? Consider the explanations that have been offered for well-known conflicts: the marital difficulties between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, the debates over ordination of gay clergy in various religious denominations, the growing divide between liberals and conservatives in the U.S. What assumptions underlie these explanations?

2.1 The Psychodynamic Perspective Landmark advances in art and science often elicit as much criticism as praise. At the turn of the century, Freud’s psychoanalytic theory changed how people saw themselves as much as French impressionist art had altered people’s views of the world. Yet both Freud and the Impressionists were also the targets of significant criticism, even ridicule. Freud and his followers studied the dynamics of the human mind (Freud, 1949). They tried to explain how intrapersonal states and mental activity give rise to behavior in social contexts. Psychodynamic theory has been overshadowed by experimental and cognitive approaches to psychology in recent years, but it is beginning to receive increased attention in psychological research (Bower, 2007).

One value of the psychodynamic perspective is that it “thinks big.” It is concerned with issues like the meaning of life, how we face death, and the origins of love and hate. It deals with fundamental human issues and has suggested important insights that have become part of our day–to–day thinking—concepts like the ego, the unconscious, repression, and wish fulfillment. Several ideas from psychodynamics are fundamental to an understanding of conflict (Coser, 1956).

Freud and his followers portray the human mind as a reservoir of psychic energy that is channeled into various activities. This energy is the impulse behind all human activity and can be channeled into any number of different behaviors, ranging from positive pursuits such as work or raising family to destructive impulses such as vandalism or verbal attacks. However it is channeled, this energy must be released. If it is not released through one channel, psychic energy builds up pressure to be released through another. Sometimes the psyche is likened to a system of hydraulic pipes in which turning off one outlet puts pressure on others.

The frustrations and uncertainties involved in conflict generate two powerful impulses—the aggressive impulse and anxiety—which we must manage. The various ways in which these two forms of energy are channeled play a critical role in conflict interaction because they determine how parties react to conflict. The psychodynamic perspective suggests that aggressive energy frequently arises from feelings of guilt, a lack of self-worth, or frustrations resulting from unfulfilled needs or thwarted desires. Aggression may be directed at the actual source of the guilt or frustration, either back at oneself in the form of self-hate or in attacks on another person. Self-hatred, however, is destructive, and aggression toward others is discouraged by moral codes and also by their negative consequences. When this occurs, individuals find various conscious or unconscious ways to redirect their aggressive impulses.

One strategy is to attempt to suppress aggressive drives. Suppression can take the form of simply not acknowledging the drives and channeling this energy into an alternative activity. For example, an employee who is angry at his boss for denying him a promotion may simply suppress his anger and re-channel it into working even harder. The psychodynamic perspective stresses the benefits of suppression because it leads to less anxiety, guilt, or pain than attempting to act on a destructive impulse or satisfy a need that is impossible to fulfill. If people recognize their drives explicitly, they usually try to make some conscious response to them, and this can increase anxiety or frustration if the drives go unsatisfied. On the other hand, if a need is never acknowledged, it can be treated as if it were nonexistent, and the energy associated with the need can be diverted into other channels.

Despite its benefits, suppression can be a double-edged sword. Suppressing a need is frustrating, and if no acceptable substitute is found, frustration can fester and erupt more strongly later on. When suppression occurs subconsciously, we may still be driven by the need without realizing it, and these may direct behavior along unproductive paths. Thus, the employee who was not given his promotion might take out his anger unconsciously by organizing his work so that he has too much to do and inadvertently misses the deadline for an important report his boss must give to her superiors. The employee may take some satisfaction in his boss’s failure; he is assuaging his anger without openly recognizing it. But this may also have bad consequences for the employee—he might lose his job if his boss believes him to be incompetent or vindictive. Facing up to anger directly may be unpleasant for both the employee and his boss, but in this case it would have been less unpleasant than the consequences of suppression.

A second strategy for dealing with aggression is to direct it toward more vulnerable or acceptable targets than the actual source of frustration. This process, displacement, is more likely when the actual source of frustration is powerful and/or valued by the individual. Rather than suffering the consequences of an attack on the actual source, parties attribute their frustrations to other parties so that their impulses can be legitimized. They look for distinctions between themselves and others so that “enemy lines” can be drawn and targets for their aggressive urges can be made available. At times, parties even transfer their feelings of frustration toward intervenors who are trying to assist with the conflict (Sherriff & Wilson, 2010).

In his insightful book The Functions of Social Conflict, Coser (1956) notes that the scapegoating of a few group members may be the result of displaced aggression. When members of a group face failure or a crisis they are often reluctant to direct their anger toward the whole group because they fear rejection. To avoid losing the benefits of belonging to the group they attack a weak member or an outsider. This process is often quite harmful to the scapegoat, but it serves to keep the group together because it allows members to vent aggressive energy. Kenwyn Smith (1989) argues that organizational conflicts are often redirected to issues and people other than those who provoke the initial reaction.

Several conflict scholars suggest that patterns of cultural displacement are at the heart of some long-standing ethnic and international conflicts that have produced deep-seated hatred and violence. Volkan (1994) and Gaylin (2003) argue that long-standing ethnic conflicts that may sometimes end in war and genocide are often spawned by social groups dealing with the difficulties of their own existence. When social groups are faced with anxiety due to their perception that their traditional status is being undermined or their place threatened, they may displace these feelings by singling out other groups as enemies. During the past few years, refugees and illegal immigrants are examples of groups that have been labeled as dangerous and intrusive by some citizens of the countries they have entered. Members of these opposition groups often feel threatened by loss of jobs and economic dislocation and reroute these anxieties into resentment of refugee and immigrant groups. Opportunistic leaders may prey on this tendency for their own benefit by rationalizing the resentment.

In addition to aggressive impulses, anxiety is also a by-product of conflict. Anxiety is an internal state of tension that arises when we perceive that our drives or needs will not be satisfied. Because conflicts involve perceived interference of others, anxiety is likely to persist

until there is some hope that an agreement will be reached that meets each party’s needs. If there is little reason for hope, or if the party suspects that others do not see their needs as legitimate, then anxiety is likely to increase throughout the conflict.

The psychodynamic perspective also points to two other sources of anxiety. First, it suggests that anxiety may result from fear of our own impulses. As noted, many drives are self- destructive or counterproductive. When people suspect that a self-destructive impulse is operating, they may become anxious. They may be unsure about how far they will go and try to establish limits and prove themselves by engaging in risky or self-endangering behavior. For example, a receptionist in a law office inadvertently overheard an insulting remark one of the lawyers made about her. She was very angry and began to berate the lawyer with insulting jokes in retaliation. Despite the possibility that the lawyer might fire her, she continued joking for several days. When a friend in the office asked her why she took the chance, she commented that she was really afraid the lawyer would fire her, but that she had to prove to herself that she was not a “mouse.” Persisting in counterproductive responses is one way of reassuring oneself that they are permissible.

Exhibit 2.1 Collusion and Intractable Conflict

Psychodynamic theories suggest that there are influences on human behavior that are subconscious. Often these subconscious influences help people deal with difficult or anxiety-producing situations without having to fully acknowledge that these situations actually exist. The concept of “collusion” is one interpersonal phenomenon that illustrates a classic way in which people can be influenced by factors that are kept some distance from their full awareness. Collusion occurs when two or more people agree subconsciously to ignore or deny some existing state of affairs or situation. As they interact with each other, they do not acknowledge to themselves or to each other that their behavior is not “reality-based.” For example, two members of a family may collude in agreeing that another family member does not have a substance abuse problem. The collusion enables the family to maintain the status quo and to avoid acknowledging a state of affairs that may be stressful to address and difficult to change.

Sometimes people engage in a particular form of collusion that contributes to the intractability of an ongoing conflict (Northrup, 1989). This happens when a conflict starts over a particular issue but as it unfolds and develops over time, the conflict comes to have a life of its own—it begins to sustain itself and propels its own escalation. This happens when the parties come to see themselves as less and less like each other and the exaggeration of differences eventually buttresses each person’s own identity. The parties become more and more dependent on the conflict to support their own sense of who they are and what they stand for. Each person knows who they are because they are not like the other person. When this happens, the parties often collude to continue the conflict because it serves to support their own sense of identity (Zartman & Faure, 2005). Although not admitting (or even seeing) that the conflict is serving this function for themselves or each other, each party becomes invested in the continuation of a conflict, which then becomes highly intractable.

Anxiety also may result due to the judgments people make about themselves. Psychodynamic theory posits that the superego gives people a capacity to make judgments about their behavior, and anxiety may result when they realize that they would and should not ordinarily act as they are. The receptionist may at some point realize that she does not approve of people who tell insulting jokes, and her persistence in making them would make her even more anxious. But she may well continue with the behavior because at the time there seems to be some legitimate or important reason for doing so, such as saving face and showing she is not a “mouse.” The anxiety people experience from engaging in disapproved behaviors may decrease the chances that they will stop these behaviors: anxiety can cloud thinking and prevent people from understanding their own ambivalence.

Anxiety influences conflict interaction by making parties excessively rigid and inflexible. Hilgard and Bower (1966) draw on psychodynamic principles to help explain compulsive or repetitive tendencies that can take hold of people’s actions, despite their destructive consequences. The mere repetition of unpleasant behaviors can be rewarding because it allows people to achieve a sense of mastery over some activity. Mastery in itself is rewarding, and, hence, behaviors continue even if they eventually prove to be destructive. Hilgard and Bower note that sense of mastery, and the compulsive behaviors it promotes, may reduce anxiety. It allows people to cope with a trying situation, and it leads to overlearned behaviors that are highly resistant to change. Although this account aims to explain neurotic forms of individual behavior, it can also explain the nature of conflict interaction cycles. Counterproductive interaction patterns can persist because they provide a way to deal with the anxiety that conflict produces. As Chapter 1 showed, these cycles, fed by members’ rigidity, can move conflicts in nonproductive directions.

Table 2.1 Psychodynamic Insights Into Conflict Psychodynamic theories encourage us to consider the following range of questions about a conflict to help understand its dynamics: • In what ways are aggressive impulses evident in the communication among the parties?

What is prompting or inhibiting the aggression? Does the aggression enhance or detract from the expression of the parties’ feelings, views, and perspectives to each other?

• Are any of the parties suppressing obvious needs? Does the suppression contribute to constructive or destructive influences on the conflict interaction?

• Are negative feelings and frustrations being displaced toward people who are not the source of the frustrations? In what ways does this displacement escalate the conflict? Does the person or group who is the target of the displacement recognize that the negative behaviors directed toward him or her stem from a different source? If they do, how do they respond to the displaced behaviors?

• In what ways are parties’ past experiences with similar issues or situations influencing their behavior in the current conflict? Are the parties aware that their behaviors in the current conflict are being influenced by prior, and perhaps unrelated, events?

• What are the specific sources of anxiety that contribute to the parties’ behavior in the conflict? How are the parties managing these sources of anxiety? What could the parties say to each other that might alleviate any of the existing anxiety?

• Are there repetitive behaviors or repetitive cycles of interaction that are particularly revealing about the parties’ inability to address their anxieties? What purpose does the repetition serve in managing aggression or addressing anxiety?

• In what ways does the continuation of the conflict help the parties manage their anxieties? Are there ways in which the parties “need” the conflict to continue to serve their own needs, even if the conflict interaction is destructive and counterproductive in other ways?

The psychodynamic perspective has generated several important insights into conflict interaction (see Table 2.1). The most important achievement is its explanation of the role of impulses, particularly aggression and anxiety, in conflicts. The idea that impulses build up and can be redirected into other activities, including attacks on a third person, is crucial to most conflict theories. The psychodynamic perspective recognizes the importance of substitute activities, displacement, scapegoating, and inflexibility in conflicts, and it allows many subtle processes to be taken into account. The idea of unconscious or subconscious motivation is also important. People do not always understand what is driving their conflict behavior. The negative consequences of unconscious motivations underscore the importance of helping members gain insight into their behavior. Once members understand what is driving conflicts they can begin to control them. Case 2.2 explores the role psychodynamic processes may have played in the Parking Lot Scuffle.

Case Study 2.2 Psychodynamic Theory and the Parking Lot Scuffle

The accident immediately led to physiological arousal in Jay and Tim. Both were frustrated and angry—Jay because of the damage to his car and Tim because his scooter was crushed. The energy from this frustration had to be channeled, and it was directed against each other, the source of the frustration. At first, Jay attempted to keep the conflict in check by giving explanations (“I didn’t see it”) and invoking social norms (“What was it doing in a parking space?”). This represents the action of the superego, which tries to keep the expression of psychic energy within socially approved bounds. However, Tim’s attacks made Jay angry, and he dropped his efforts to resolve the conflict through “normal” channels. Escalation developed as the two exchanged insults and aggressive energy fed on itself, further escalating the conflict.

The conflict might have taken a different turn if the two had displaced the conflict by blaming the parking company for mislabeling the parking slots. This would have united them as they redirected their anger at a different target. Another way to manage the psychic energy in this conflict would have been to suppress it. For example, Jay might have toned down his anger and conversed calmly with Tim to help Tim temper his anger. Then the two might have worked out a mutually acceptable resolution. Another way to suppress the conflict would have been for Jay to walk off and find an attendant or police officer who could have taken down the details of the accident. The case would then have been referred to their insurance companies. The two methods of suppressing the conflict would have had very different outcomes. The first approach dissipates the psychic energy associated with the dispute. The second, however, leaves this energy intact, and Tim would need to deal with it, either by displacing it or by finding some way to take it out on Jay, perhaps at a different time or place.

Discussion Questions

How might anxiety have played a role in this conflict? What is a possible source of anxiety, according to psychodynamic theory?

2.2 Emotion and Conflict Common sense tells us that emotion is an important part of conflict, and research during the past fifteen years has greatly clarified how emotion influences conflicts (Guerrero, 2013; Jones, 2001; Long & Brecke, 2003). Guerrero (2013) discusses five points that are important in understanding how emotion shapes conflict:

“Emotions occur in reaction to a specific stimulus or precipitating event that interrupts, prevents or facilitates a person’s ability to reach desired goals” (p. 106) The central constituent of emotional experience is positive or negative affect Physiological changes usually accompany emotional experiences Cognition frames and helps people interpret emotional reactions Specific behavioral tendencies or reactions are associated with emotions

Jones (2001) argues that the same factors that trigger conflict—incompatibilities and interference from another—set off emotional responses. In many cases, a surge of emotion is what makes us aware that we are in a conflict. Typically, the affect associated with the emotional response to conflict is negative, since the conflict is associated with blockage or frustration of goals. One study found that arguments accounted for 80% of the variance in subjects’ negative mood (Bolger et al., 1989). Along with negative affect come physiological changes, particularly in terms of how activated or aroused we are. For example, anger is associated with increased heartbeat and tensed muscles. Physiological responses associated with emotion may impede our ability to listen and understand others, because they are so powerful and immediate. They are associated with the fight/flight response and predispose us to visceral responses.

The experience of emotion is shaped by our interpretations of the situation. Current models of emotion posit that cognitive processes play a role in how we label emotions (e.g., Lazarus & Lazarus, 1994; Planalp, 1999). Primary and secondary appraisal processes, both of which occur rapidly in response to an event, are involved in the generation of emotional states. Primary appraisal determines whether affect is positive or negative and consists of an assessment of whether the event is relevant to us and, if it is deemed relevant, whether it advances or threatens to disrupt attainment of our goals in a situation. In secondary appraisal we identify what the emotion is, a process also called labeling. Secondary appraisals involve determining who is responsible for the event that stimulated our affect, the other’s intent toward us, the degree of control we have over the event, and whether the situation will get better or worse in the near future. So the same negative affect in response to a tactless joke could be labeled anger if we interpret the situation as one in which the joker purposely insulted us and we

have enough control over the situation to take some action against him, or sadness if we believe the joke reflected contempt for us and that we are powerless to do anything about it.

Cognitive processes thus play an important role in shaping emotions in conflict. The reverse is also true: Emotional states influence cognitive processing. Negative emotions such as anger, hurt, and sadness can predispose us to focus on the negative aspects of the situation and to see the other’s behavior in more negative terms than if we were in a positive emotional state.

Emotions tend to elicit certain types of behavioral responses. These biologically based responses help us to deal with the events that stimulated the emotion. According to Guerrero (2013, p. 108), “Different emotions are associated with various action tendencies. For example, anger is associated with attack, fear with moving away from harm, and guilt with making amends.”

A number of emotions are associated with conflict. Here we will discuss several of the most important and common emotions, both negative and positive. The most common negative emotion associated with conflict is anger. Other emotions associated with anger include rage, disgust, contempt, irritation, and exasperation. Angry people typically have accelerated heart rates, feel hot or flushed, and may have tense muscles. Anger is most often triggered, as noted earlier, when an individual perceives his or her goals to be frustrated or threatened by another. In addition, some individuals have predispositions toward anger due to personality or substance abuse. Infante and Wigley (1986) have proposed that verbal aggressiveness is a personality trait closely connected with anger and have also described verbally aggressive behavior (see the accompanying Exhibit 2.2). Canary, Spitzberg, and Semic (1998) found that common specific causes of anger include perceptions of threats to identity or face, aggression by another on oneself or valued others, unfairness or inequity, another’s egocentric behavior, and threats to valued relationships. Anger can be a precursor to aggressive behavior (Butt & Choi, 2010; Raver & Barling, 2008).

Exhibit 2.2 Verbal Aggressiveness

Infante and colleagues (Infante & Wigley, 1986) proposed a theory of verbal aggressiveness to explain why verbal attacks occur in interpersonal communication. The theory views aggression as a personality trait that represents a learned predisposition to act in response to certain cues that are reminiscent of the context in which the learning occurred. For example, the theory posits that a person who has seen family members aggressively confront, insult, and taunt each other during disagreements would learn this behavior as a response to disagreement. The person would be likely to engage in similar types of aggressive behavior when someone disagrees with him or her. The likelihood of this response depends on (a) how similar the disagreement in question is to those the person experienced in his or her family; (b) how often the person was exposed to the aggressive response in his or her family; and (c) the degree to which rewarding or positive consequences were seen as a result of the aggressive behavior in the person’s family.

The theory distinguishes between verbal attacks made against ideas or positions and verbal attacks made against self-concept. Argument involves presenting and defending

positions on issues while attacking positions held by others. Verbal aggression, on the other hand, also includes attacks on another’s self-concept. The aggressiveness trait is a predisposition to use personalized attacks in interpersonal communication.

For Infante, verbal aggressiveness is yoked to a trait he labels argumentativeness. The theory maintains that to understand aggression, the concept of argumentativeness must be understood. A person’s level of argumentativeness is created by two competing motivational tendencies: the motivation to approach argumentative situations and the motivation to avoid such situations. Highly argumentative people perceive arguing as exciting and intellectually challenging, and they experience feelings of invigoration and satisfaction after engaging in arguments. People who are low in argumentativeness find arguments uncomfortable and unpleasant; they generally associate argument with personal suffering. Not surprisingly, these individuals attempt to avoid arguments or keep them from occurring. In the aftermath of arguments they often feel anxious and unsettled.

As a result of approaching or avoiding argumentative situations, people develop or fail to develop the social skills needed to succeed, so an argument is unavoidable. Highly argumentative people tend to be more skilled at stating controversies in propositional forms, determining the major issues of contention, discovering ways to support a position, and delivering arguments effectively. Among the many factors promoting aggressive behavior, skill proficiency weds the traits of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness.

In a series of studies, Infante and colleagues demonstrated that people low in argumentativeness are more likely to resort to attacks against the self-concept of the other party. In other words, low argumentatives are high in verbal aggressiveness. In a manner of speaking, the two traits represent the opposite poles of a single-skill continuum. Because individuals who avoid argumentative confrontations are often frustrated and lack the skills to succeed in such situations, they turn to verbal aggression.

Argumentative behavior is a positive trait that is distinct from verbally aggressive behavior. The advantages of argumentativeness are numerous. Research has shown that argumentative behavior is positively related to career satisfaction, career achievement, superior–subordinate relationship satisfaction, and other organizational outcomes (Infante & Gorden, 1985).

Verbal aggressiveness is a negative trait that can produce a variety of effects in interpersonal communication, including conflict escalation, long-lasting damage to self- concepts, and deterioration of relationships. Infante believes that teaching people to value argument and providing them with the skills to succeed in argumentative situations will increase productivity in society and reduce the amount of verbally aggressive acts during interpersonal conflicts.

What do we do about verbal aggressiveness? Infante and colleagues propose using workshops and therapy sessions that would focus on making the person aware of his or her tendencies and on developing alternative behavior patterns through rehearsal and feedback. Such measures are time-consuming and require the consent of the verbally aggressive person, so they may not be of much help when confronting such a person during a conflict. When in a conflict with a verbally aggressive person, it is important to

maintain distance from the exchange and not be drawn into mudslinging and name- calling. This is difficult to do in the heat of the moment, but it is critical not to buy into the verbal aggressive’s assumptions about what is appropriate behavior. Steadfast resistance to the attacks of the verbal aggressor is also important, as it signals to him or her that the approach will not work in this case. It is also useful to bear in mind that, in a small proportion of cases, a frustrated aggressive person may resort to physical violence or other means of reprisal; we need to protect ourselves from this possibility.

How do we work with verbal aggressiveness? One step is to become aware of our own tendency to be verbally aggressive. If we recognize that we are low in argumentative skills, we can engage in specific strategies to help prevent ourselves from turning to verbal aggression, including the following:

Monitoring our comfort and skill in verbal arguments Recognizing that discussion of “hot” topics may trigger verbal aggression due to our frustration with the argument and difficulty in expressing ourselves Making conscious commitments about specific words, expressions, or sentences that we will not use in a verbal argument Talking slowly and deliberately; pausing before giving a response Preparing substantive arguments before a discussion Disengaging from the interaction if frustration rises beyond a manageable level

When others are low on argumentative skills, it may be useful to approach them thoughtfully to avoid triggering their verbal aggression. Some possible strategies include the following:

Giving them advance notice about the need or desire to talk about a controversial topic Providing a summary of your point of view in writing before engaging in a face- to-face conversation with them Letting them speak first in the interaction about the topic Asking them questions before presenting your own arguments Paraphrasing their arguments before responding to their substantive points Avoiding discussion of differences with them in front of other people

Common behaviors associated with anger include physical attacks, verbal attacks, and nonverbal expressions of disapproval (Fehr et al., 1999). These obviously invite reciprocation and can contribute to spiraling escalation of a conflict. Another common response to anger is to avoid the other. There are also more constructive responses to anger, such as expressing hurt feelings and channeling the emotion into a respectful yet assertive response to the other. However, this type of response is more indirect, and because it “short-circuits” the general defensive response to anger, it may take some effort and self-control to make it.

Jealousy is a hostile emotion associated with the perception that a third party is threatening a primary relationship (e.g., a partner relationship, a boss–employee relationship, a minister– congregant relationship).Three common destructive communicative responses to jealousy are

“negative communication (e.g., yelling, arguing, insulting, and ignoring), counterjealousy induction (e.g. attempts to make the offending partner feel jealous too), and violent communication,” (e.g., pushing the partner) (Guerrero, 2013, p. 111). Jealousy is a common cause of physical violence.

Another negative emotion that occurs in conflicts is fear. Physiological responses to fear include perspiration, muscle tension, pupil dilation, and the hair on arms and legs standing up. In some cases an individual may have a higher heart rate, a “startle” reaction, and involuntarily movement to protect parts of his or her body that seem likely to be harmed. Fear is stimulated by perceived likelihood of harm. Causes of fear in conflict include perception of physical aggression, verbal aggression, threats to face or identity, and possible loss of a person or thing of value. The behavioral tendency associated with fear is flight, and common responses to fear in conflict include withdrawing, accommodating the other, and avoidance of the conflict altogether.

Hurt is the fourth negative emotion that often occurs during conflict. Hurt results when one feels psychologically injured by someone else. Hurt is associated with other negative emotions such as anger, anguish, sadness, and suffering, and can easily transform into them. Physiological hurt is similar to both anger and sadness, depending on which of these other emotions is associated with the hurt. We have already discussed the physiological correlates of anger. If the hurt is tinged with sadness, then physiological responses may include tears, a lump in the throat, tensed muscles, and quietude. Causes of hurt include accusations, negative evaluations, lies, and betrayal. Another cause is relational transgressions (Metts, 1994), violations of implicit or explicit relational rules that are perceived as betrayal. Relational transgressions include infidelity in interpersonal relationships, disconfirming a friend, going back on a promise, or manipulating a colleague at work.

Behavioral responses to hurt may be similar to those for anger, but also include acquiescence to the other’s behavior and expressions of invulnerability (e.g., “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never harm me.”). Other responses affirm the relationship, such as expressions of loyalty (e.g., “I know X didn’t mean that,” and “I’ll work through this because our relationship is more important than this little incident”), and integrative communication whereby the hurt party attempts to engage the other to talk things out and repair the relationship with the offender.

Guilt is a negative emotion that results from hurting another. Guerrero (2013) notes that “people experience guilt when they perceive that they have injured, unjustly hurt, or failed to help someone” (p. 115). It is a self-conscious emotion that involves judging ourselves to have come up short or to have violated our own or generally accepted codes of conduct toward another. Physiological reactions to guilt include a lump in the throat, accelerated heartbeat, irregular breathing, and a tension associated with wanting to do something to compensate for our transgression. Guilt may be stimulated by our reflections on our own behavior, but others’ communication may also trigger guilt. Vangelisti, Daly, and Rudnick (1991) identified several conversational tactics that stimulate guilt, including statements about unfulfilled relational or role obligations (e.g., “but you promised …”), bringing up sacrifices (e.g., “I worked overtime this weekend for you, and now you do this!”), and making comparisons that reflect badly (e.g., “You’ve spent two weekends in a row with Jake. When do I get some time with you?”).

In response to guilt, parties may simply refuse to take responsibility (e.g., “I never asked you

to work overtime”), or they may justify their behavior (e.g., “I was with Jake because his wife is leaving him and he needed me”). Responses that affirm the relationship include offering compensation (e.g., “What can I do to make up for this?”), appeasement (e.g., “All right, let’s spend this weekend together”), and apologies.

There has been less attention paid to positive emotions in conflict. Since conflict is founded on differences and interference with goals, negative emotional states are primary. However, positive emotions, though secondary, are also relevant to conflict. One response to conflict is hope (Lazarus & Lazarus, 1994). Hope is a positive feeling based on anticipation of positive outcomes that is associated with an optimistic outlook. Physiological correlates of hope include moderate levels of activation, a light feeling (as opposed to the heaviness sometimes associated with depression), and some increase in pulse rate. Hope can sometimes be intense, but generally is a more moderate emotional state. Factors that contribute to hopefulness include personality and prior experience with conflict situations that turned out well. An experienced manager, for example, commented that when she was involved in a conflict, she regarded it as an opportunity to improve the situation, rather than something to be dreaded. An optimistic response to a conflict depends on a secondary appraisal that redefines the negative affect as something that can be channeled in positive directions.

Another positive emotion, energy, “is the feeling that one is eager to act and capable of acting” (Quinn & Dutton, 2005, p. 36). Also described as vitality and zest, energy is a self- reinforcing experience that is quite pleasant and focusing, one which people try to prolong and enhance. People try to re-create or repeat circumstances that create energy and to avoid those that deplete or dampen it. Physiological correlates of energy include enhanced awareness, focused attention, and sometimes tensed muscles and increased heartbeat. Factors that contribute to energy include positive expectations about a situation, a sense that one is capable of meeting the challenges of the situation, and positive affect and encouragement from others (Quinn & Dutton, 2005). Energy fosters a tendency to view events positively and to invest effort in activities. Hence, it is a valuable emotion that may help move conflicts in positive directions (Butt & Choi, 2010).

There is a tendency to regard emotions primarily as undesirable during conflict. This stems from a long-standing tradition in Western thought that privileges thinking over feeling. Thinking—rationally analyzing the situation and working out alternatives that might resolve a conflict—seems to be preferable to allowing our emotional responses to take over and drive the conflict in nonrational—or even irrational—directions. However, this viewpoint is overly simplistic and based on an oversimplified notion of the role of emotions in conflict.

Emotions are a natural part of the human experience, and they are a natural part of conflict. We would be poorer if we could somehow turn off our emotional reactions to conflict and approach it solely on the basis of reason. Emotions energize our responses to conflict and are just as important to positive integrative movement toward a solution as they are to destructive escalation. So the issue should not be deciding whether emotion is bad for conflict or not, but when and under what conditions it has positive versus negative effects.

Emotions can be so powerful that they overwhelm us, limiting our ability to accurately understand others or to appreciate their positions and reducing our ability to analyze the conflict and think through issues and options. Gottman (1994) discusses emotional flooding, when one party is surprised and overwhelmed by the other’s negative emotional response.

This arouses such strong counter-emotions in the party that the party is unable to process the other’s statements and issues properly. This degrades the party’s ability to respond to the conflict, and makes an aggressive, attacking response more likely.

Emotional contagion is a more general term that refers to the tendency for emotions to spread among parties in a conflict. Emotional contagion is defined as a tendency to automatically mirror or mimic the emotional response to another, leading to a synchronization of emotional experience and reciprocation of behavioral responses to emotion (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994; Lehmann-Willenbrock & Kauffeld, 2010). So, Jack may respond to Jill’s angry outburst by becoming angry in return and shouting back at her, which intensifies Jill’s anger and encourages her to shout even louder, which infuriates Jack, and so on. As we will see in Chapter 3, reciprocation is a natural and powerful tendency in human interaction. Emotional contagion is one contributing factor to reciprocation.

Jones (2001) cautions us to recognize that emotional contagion—like emotion itself—is not a simple phenomenon. She points out that “Not only do people differ in their focus on affective communication as information … but also they differ in their propensity to be affected by the emotional communication of others” (p. 92). The communication of emotions by others may not affect us if we discount the emotional display (e.g., “He’s just tired and grumpy; don’t pay attention to that outburst”), or when we are aware of potentially harmful impact of emotions, The nature of the relationships may influence response to emotional communication. Sentiment override (Roloff & Wright, 2013) refers to the tendency for people satisfied with their relationships to interpret their partners’ behavior in positive ways, while dissatisfied parties tend to interpret the other’s behavior more negatively. Intensity of conflict may also play a role. Hatfield, Cacioppo, and Rapson (1994) found that in situations of intense competition, people are likely to dampen their responses to others’ emotional displays. Participants in sports are familiar with this, as they often try to “keep their cool” as the other “experiences a meltdown.”

Communication media also have effects on emotional expression. Suler (2004) summarizes evidence for an “online disinhibition effect” in which people self-disclose or act out more frequently or intensely than they would in person. Disinhibition occurs because people using media, like blogs, text messaging, and Twitter, tend to feel more anonymous and less visible to others. They also are dissociated from others because they do not see their reactions as they would in person. Sometimes people also begin to feel as though their online personae are distinct and different from their in-person selves. Finally, the lack of sanctions from others and general freedom on the internet can lead people to minimize authority and the consequences of their actions. All these dynamics combine to “give people the courage to go places and do things that they otherwise wouldn’t,” and it frees them up to express emotions more directly, clearly, and strongly than they would in face-to-face interaction (Suler, 2004, p. 322). This is true for both negative and positive emotions.

As this discussion illustrates, emotions may have powerful impacts on conflicts, but the impacts are complex. Case 2.3 considers the role emotion played in the Parking Lot Scuffle. Emotional communication can have both positive and negative effects on conflict management. These effects are tightly bound with cognitive processes associated with conflict, to which we now turn. Table 2.2 gives some basic suggestions for working with emotion in conflicts.

Case Study 2.3 Emotion in the Parking Lot Scuffle

The predominant emotion at the beginning of this conflict was anger. Jay hit the moped, and his natural reaction was to become upset at the accident. His pulse rate was elevated, and he may have been trembling a bit, a common reaction to an accident that is a “near miss” in which nothing really harmful happened to him. Tim saw his Honda and was angry because his cherished moped had been damaged. Tim launched a verbal attack, a reflexive action triggered by anger.

Tim’s attack prompted Jay to reassess his feelings in a secondary appraisal. His physiological reactions were already similar to those of anger, and the anger expressed by Tim elicited a matching anger response from Jay. This emotional contagion put both in similar emotional states, which had the potential to escalate the conflict. As the interchange unfolds, Tim experienced emotional flooding. His anger was so extreme that it seemed to block his ability to comprehend Jay. Tim was concerned only with getting reparations from Jay or, if these weren’t forthcoming, with taking revenge on Jay.

Another common reaction to anger is to avoid the other party, and this seems to be what Jay was doing near the end of the episode. He turned away from Tim, trying to end the confrontation and calm down. Tim, flooded with anger, hit him.

Discussion Questions

Was the emotional contagion inevitable? Could anything have been done to avoid the escalation of anger and to inject some positive emotion into the situation?

Table 2.2 Working with Emotions: Questions to Ask and Measures to Take Regarding Emotions in Conflict

• Accept emotion as a natural part of conflict and acknowledge your emotions. • Identify your emotional states. You may not always be aware of exactly what emotions

you are feeling. • Ask yourself whether the emotion you have labeled your current state with is

appropriate for this situation. • Be aware of the behavioral tendencies associated with various emotions and consider

whether these tendencies are constructive or destructive in the current situation. • Realize the possibility of emotional flooding. If your emotions overwhelm you, find a

way to get some distance and perspective on them. • Be vigilant for emotional contagion. Are you and the other party feeding on one

another’s emotions? Is there some way to short-circuit this? • Foster hope and positive energy. • Own up to your emotions and discuss them with the other party. • Help the other party discuss his or her emotions. Recognize the other’s emotions as

legitimate and respect his or her feelings. You will not be able to get someone else to dismiss emotions, but you can help him or her gain insight into them.

• Chapters 7 and 8 provide suggestions for building a climate safe for emotional expression and for communicating in ways that counteract some of the negative impacts of emotional flooding and contagion.

2.3 Social Cognition and Conflict Social cognition refers to “the organized thoughts people have about human interaction” (Roloff & Berger, 1982, p. 21). Thoughts are organized by various cognitive structures and processes. For our purposes, the structures and processes of interest are those pertaining to conflict and conflict interaction. Roloff and Wright (2013) summarize these in terms of: (a) forms of social knowledge that we may have about interpersonal conflict; and (b) cognitive processes that shape our behavior in conflicts. We will discuss each of these in turn.

2.3.1 Social Knowledge About Conflict and Conflict Interaction

Several types of knowledge influence our expectations about conflict and our behavior in conflict interaction. We will consider beliefs about conflict, conflict frames, and conflict scripts.

Beliefs About Conflict

Roloff and Wright (2013) classify beliefs about conflict into assumptions and standards. Assumptions are beliefs such as whether conflict is desirable or not, how others will behave in conflict, and how a conflict will turn out. Studies have found that common beliefs related to conflict include the following (Crohan, 1992; Roloff & Wright, 2013):

Conflict is destructive The other party cannot change Men and women respond differently to conflict Problems can be overcome Disagreements can be settled if you just talk about them Disagreements in a marriage are healthy

While these are just a few of the possible beliefs about conflict, studies have shown that these beliefs exert the types of influence we might expect over how partners in relationships respond to each other.

Standards are beliefs about how a conflict should be handled. Maxims and sayings reflect various standards about conflict:

Let sleeping dogs lie. Never go to bed mad at each other. Arguments only confirm people in their own opinions. You can make up after a quarrel, but it will always show where it was patched. For souls in growth, great quarrels are great emancipations.

These sayings reflect several aspects of standards. Standards incorporate value judgments about conflict. Standards also include implicit beliefs about how conflicts typically unfold or about their likely outcomes. Finally, standards may guide our behavior in conflict.

Culture is an important influence on beliefs and standards about conflict. We are not born knowing how to think. Patterns of thinking and reasoning are learned as we mature, and the culture we are born into, which favors certain ways of thinking over others, is the primary source of these patterns (Hofstede & Bond, 1984). Glen (1981) distinguished different cultures based on their typical thought patterns, and these cultural differences have been linked to different ways of responding to conflicts. Table 2.3 briefly describes the main types of cultures Glen identified.

Kozan (1997) has identified three different conflict models that stem from the different ways of thinking in diverse cultures. His framework suggests that people with different cultural backgrounds will have different standards about conflict: they will have different attitudes toward conflict, different expectations about appropriate conflict behavior, as well as different approaches to managing conflict. Kozan’s three cultural models—the harmony model, the confrontational model, and the regulative model—are summarized in Table 2.4 below and represent three general standards people can hold about conflict. The harmony model tends to emerge in associative cultures, while the confrontational and regulative models tend to emerge in abstractive cultures. The confrontational model is more likely to hold in abstractive cultures that assume power should be distributed equally among people (low-power distance cultures). On the other hand, the regulative model is more likely to hold in cultures that accept the existence of differences in power (high-power distance cultures). These culturally based models of conflict have a significant impact on how conflict interaction unfolds. Differences in conflict styles across cultures have been found in a variety of cross-cultural settings (Ellis & Maoz, 2002; Nicotera & Dorsey, 2006; Tingley, 2001; Zupnik, 2000). These will be discussed further in Chapter 4, which deals with conflict styles.

Table 2.3 Types of Cultures

Associative Culture

• Reliance on a particular way of thinking—requires close reading of immediate and past contexts

• People are keenly aware of obligations to others • People value the group over the individual (collectivism) • People are highly dependent on others in the immediate situation • Communication is not always open and explicit • Meanings have to be inferred from contextual cues

Abstractive Culture

• Reliance on a universal way of thinking—knowledge can be shared across large groups • People value assertion of self over group commitment (individualism)

• Communication is precise and explicit • Meanings are assumed to be stated openly, and interpretations rely less on contextual

cues

Table 2.4 Cultural Models of Conflict and Their Characteristics

Harmony Model

• Emphasizes maintaining smooth relationships • Tendency to prevent or avoid open expression of conflict • Reliance on cooperativeness and connection • Lack of self-assertion • Restriction on negative emotional displays • Emphasis on use of third parties who are from the community • Preservation of honor, pride, and face • Strives for long-term, stable outcomes to a conflict

Confrontational Model

• Emphasizes the aggressive pursuit of individual goals • Conflicts are valued because they can address the needs of individuals • Less emphasis on relationship or group preservation • Tendency to open up conflict and to engage in negotiations • Emotions are experienced intensely and expressed openly • Use of third parties to help facilitate the negotiation between parties • Interventions strive for short-term gains

Regulative Model

• Emphasizes settling conflict through application of principles • Reliance on codes, rules, and laws to address differences or issues • Personal aspects of the conflicts tend to be underplayed or ignored • Emotions are underplayed and are seen as less relevant to the conflict resolution process • Third parties are usually people in ascribed roles who have the power to apply rules to

specific conflict situations • Procedural justice is an important element of the conflict resolution process • Short-term resolutions are valued over long-term concerns

Conflict Scripts

A script is a cognitive structure that describes appropriate sequences of events in an episode. It has been documented that people have scripts for eating in restaurants, conversations, and dating. There is also evidence that people have scripts for conflict. Fehr et al. (1999) found

evidence that men and women had expectations about how they would react to anger and how their partner would respond to their reaction (though this study did not actually elicit scripts from subjects). The most common expected response to expression of anger for both men and women was that the other would talk it over, be conciliatory, and express hurt feelings.

Miller (1991) elicited scripts from undergraduates about five different conflicts precipitated by, respectively, a broken promise, the cumulative effects of an annoying habit, criticism, a rebuff, and an illegitimate demand. She found differences in the scripts across the different types of conflicts. For example, in response to a broken promise the most common script was that the party would ask a question about the promise, the other would make an excuse, the party would accept the apology, and the conflict would be somewhat resolved. In response to the rebuff, in which the other did not invite the party to a social gathering of old friends, in the most common script the party accuses the other, the other makes an excuse, the party grudgingly accepts the excuse, and the conflict is resolved.

Burrell and Buzzanell conducted studies on the mental schemas people held concerning what would typically occur during conflicts (Burrell, Buzzanell, & McMillan, 1992; Buzzanell & Burrell, 1997). To identify these schemas, they analyzed the metaphors workers and students used to describe conflicts in their families and at workplaces. Three distinct metaphorical schemas were found.

The conflict is war schema identifies conflict as a battle that involves great cost to the participants. Examples of metaphors reflecting this schema include “clash of the Titans,” “fighting like cats and dogs,” and “guerilla warfare.” The war schema assumes that conflict is a win–lose proposition and that competing and forcing would determine the outcome. The conclusion of a conflict involving this metaphor is victory for one side and defeat for the other.

The conflict is impotence schema depicts conflict as a “victimizing process in which participants were powerless to influence or alter unpredictable events” (Buzzanell & Burrell, 1997, p. 125). The parties see themselves as trapped in a conflict not of their making, often trying vainly to protect themselves or to change a situation that is beyond their control. All this effort is felt to be wasted because they have little control. Metaphors reflecting this theme include “a bear preying on a defenseless infant,” “running up a steep hill with lead weights in my pockets,” “whatever I say isn’t heard,” and “I am a ghost.”

The third schema, conflict is a rational process, portrays conflict in collaborative terms and emphasizes its potentially positive outcomes. This view of conflict emphasizes discussion, debate, and exploring issues. Examples of metaphors in this schema include “a discussion handled responsibly,” “the comedy cabaret; we end up laughing most of the time,” and “Mother Teresa (my boss never shows anger or reacts in a hostile way; everything is handled in a very cool and collected manner).” This schema implies that conflicts can be constructive.

These studies suggest that many people may have implicit scripts that shape their expectations about how a conflict will unfold. These may be based in part on social norms of acceptable behavior and, no doubt, on prior experience.

Conflict Frames Framing is a critical concept in our understanding of conflict. As DeWulf et al. (2009) note, there are two meanings of frame in scholarship on conflict, both of which are useful. One views framing as a cognitive process which draws on “mental structures that

facilitate organizing and interpreting incoming perceptual information by fitting it into already learned schemas or frames about reality” (p. 158). In this cognitive view, a frame is a cognitive structure based on previous experience, which guides our interpretation of an interaction or event. A second perspective views framing as an interaction process in which parties co-construct the meaning of a conflict. These perspectives complement each other and we will consider both in this book. Cognitive frames, discussed in this chapter, guide our expectations about conflict and how we interpret other parties’ acts. Interactional framing, discussed in Chapter 3, concerns how parties with similar or different cognitive frames work out a stance toward the conflict among themselves.

There has been a substantial amount of research on cognitive conflict frames (Roloff & Wright, 2013). Rogan (2006) attempted to integrate and synthesize this research into a common set of dimensions. He identified six dimensions of conflict frames that guided interpretations of interpersonal conflict:

Instrumentality: The degree to which the party focuses on factual or substantive issues and outcomes Other Assessment: The degree to which the party focuses on the other’s conduct and judging whether it was good/bad, right/wrong, or fair/unfair Affect: The degree to which the party has negative emotions toward the other or the conflict in general Face: The degree to which the party focuses on issues related to self-image Affiliation: The degree to which the party is concerned with finding a mutually acceptable solution and maintaining a good relationship with the other Distributiveness: The degree to which the party interpreted the conflict in win–lose or competitive terms

These six dimensions map the various ways in which parties might interpret conflicts, and not all will figure in every interpretation. In terms of our discussion of conflict types in the Introduction, realistic conflict would be framed as instrumental and affiliative. In contrast, nonrealistic conflicts would be framed as distributive and emotional, and there would be much concern with assessing the other (primarily negatively) and with self-image.

Again, returning to our types in the Introduction, task conflict would be framed as instrumental and affiliative, while relationship conflict would be framed as emotional, distributive, and concerned with assessing the other. Process conflict would be instrumental (since it pertains to how the group members will work together), and it could be framed in positive terms as affiliative or in negative terms as distributive, concerned with other assessment, and concerned with losing one’s own face.

Pinkley and Northcraft (1994) studied framing in a simulated conflict. They found that instrumental and affiliative frames resulted in better outcomes than did distributive frames. They also found that subjects who adopted an instrumental frame were more satisfied with the outcome than those who adopted an affective frame.

Research on negotiation has studied how differential framing of bargaining proposals can influence the evaluations and choices made about those proposals (Bazerman, 1983; Bazerman & Neale, 1983). Bargaining proposals can be worded to suggest what might be gained by adopting or accepting the proposal. Or the same proposal can be worded to suggest what will

be lost by adopting or accepting the proposal. Both frames represent different ways of wording proposals within the instrumental, affiliative, and distributive dimensions of framing.

As an illustration of these gain or loss frames, consider the following example that has been used as a basis for research on negotiations (Bazerman & Neale, 1983, pp. 54–55):

A large manufacturer has recently been hit with a number of economic difficulties, and it appears as if three plants need to be closed and 6,000 employees laid off. The vice president of production has been exploring alternative ways to avoid this crisis.

The way options are framed has an important effect on people’s preferences. The difference in framing as potential for gain versus potential for loss is enough to shift the choices that people make. When people choose among options cast in terms of gains, they are more likely to choose the sure thing.

In contrast, when people choose among options that are cast in terms of losses (as in the example above), they are more likely to choose the riskier option. Research shows that negotiators who view possible outcomes in terms of gains rather than losses are, in some cases, more likely to attain better overall outcomes because they do not take as much risk (Bazerman, Magliozzi, & Neale, 1985; Neale & Northcraft, 1986).

However, this may not be the case in conflicts, since sometimes willingness to take a risk may be associated with trying to find a solution acceptable to everyone (i.e., with adopting a collaborating conflict style, as we will see in Chapter 4).

What guides our framing of conflicts? As noted in the definition of frame, past experience plays an important role. Prior experience with the other party encourages us to select certain frames over others. If Jill has been competitive in previous conflicts, we are likely to apply the distributive frame in the future. Gayle and Preiss (1998) found that memory of a negative experience in a previous conflict clouded the subsequent relationships between parties. Our experience in particular contexts or situations also influences the frames we select. If we are working in an organization that values constructive, supportive communication, we are more likely to apply an instrumental and affiliative frame.

Past experience with significant others such as our families, friends, and mentors may also shape how we frame conflicts (Roloff & Wright, 2013). There is evidence that experiences we have had in conflicts in important relationships influence how we frame conflicts through transference of the negative or positive feelings from past experience to the present situation (Bower, 2007). For this transference to occur, the other party must have characteristics or mannerisms like those of the significant other.

Rogan (2006) reported that men and women differed in the frames they applied in describing previous conflicts. Women applied the affiliative frame more than men, while men tended to use the distributive frame more than women. Culture also seems likely to influence the framing of conflicts. Gelfand et al. (2001) compared the frames used by U.S. and Japanese citizens and found some commonalities, but also some unique frames. Both cultures used frames similar to affiliation and distributive frames, but only U.S. citizens used an “infringement of rights” frame similar to the other assessment frame, while the Japanese citizens employed a “duty to repay obligations” frame. This is consistent with the general tendency for U.S. citizens to emphasize individualism and the Japanese to emphasize collectivism.

Beliefs and scripts are forms of social knowledge that exist prior to and independent of a

particular conflict. They tend to be abstract. Parties recall beliefs and scripts when confronted with a potential or actual conflict to help them interpret the situation and for guidance. Frames, on the other hand, emerge in response to the conflict and are tied to the specific context. Of course, the cognitive structures that give rise to frames are preexisting, and people do seem to have habitual tendencies to frame conflicts in particular ways. However, the particular frame applied is specific to the immediate situation. Case 2.4 shows how social knowledge may have played a role in the Parking Lot Scuffle. Beliefs, scripts, and frames enter into and are shaped by several cognitive processes, to which we now turn.

2.3.2 Social Cognitive Processes and Conflict

The thought processes by which we make sense of and interpret others’ behavior during a conflict obviously have an influence on our own conflict behavior. Three processes in particular are likely to influence conflict interaction: expectancy violations, attributions about others, and thinking about the conflict.

Case Study 2.4 Social Knowledge About Conflict and the Parking Lot Scuffle

Several beliefs about conflicts seem to have affected the development of the Parking Lot Scuffle. Standards about how problems like the accident should be handled are implicit in Jay’s reaction, which implies that Tim was responsible for where his moped was parked, and therefore Jay was not to blame. The standard of personal responsibility implied that Tim should back down and take responsibility, thus reducing the conflict. Tim, on the other hand, assumed that damages are the responsibility of the person doing the damage and that Jay was responsible. As the conflict progressed, Jay’s behavior reflected the belief that when conflicts get out of hand, one should turn to a third party (the police) to mediate or manage the conflict.

Tim framed the conflict in distributive terms based on an assessment of Jay’s behavior as wrong and unfair. Jay also bought into this frame, adding a judgment of Tim as presumptuous and rude, and engaged in inappropriate behavior (physical contact). When both parties frame a conflict in this way, escalation is bound to occur.

Discussion Questions

Which cultural models of conflict does Tim’s behavior most resemble? What standards concerning how conflict should be handled does this imply? What about Jay’s behavior? How might Jay have framed the conflict so that his frame did not match Tim’s so closely? What barriers stand in the way of adopting a different frame?

Expectancy Violations: Expectancy violations theory asserts that people have both predictive

and prescriptive expectancies about others’ behaviors (Burgoon, Stern, & Dillman, 1995). Predictive expectancies pertain to expectations about how another will act in a particular situation. Prescriptive expectancies pertain to expectations about how another should act in a particular situation. Burgoon and colleagues argue that when the other’s behavior falls outside expectancies it creates emotional reactions and attempts to make sense of the situation. If the other’s behavior negatively violates the party’s expectancies it is likely to spark negative emotional responses and a behavioral response. In some cases, this response attempts to compensate for the violation, and in other cases the response is to reciprocate the negative violation.

The party’s assessment of the potential reward value of the other party is what determines whether the party compensates or reciprocates. If the party judges that the other has low potential for future reward, the party is more likely to reciprocate negative behavior. For example, if a stranger Jill has never met says something rude, Jill is likely to snub the stranger or perhaps say something rude in return because she does not expect further contacts in the future. If, however, the party assesses that the other has high potential for reward, compensation is the most likely response. If Jill’s boss says something rude, Jill is likely to either ignore the remark or perhaps turn it into a joke because she knows that her raise depends on her boss’s goodwill.

Conflicts are situations in which expectancy violations are likely to occur, and the associated cognitive dynamics are thus likely to influence conflict. Bachman and Guerrero (2006) studied reactions to hurtful events in interpersonal relationships from an expectancy violation perspective. They argued that when people experience hurtful events such as infidelity, deception, unfair accusations, and rebuffs, they base their responses on their assessment of the potential reward and the intentions of the other. When the other person was highly rewarding, parties tended to respond more constructively by expressing satisfaction with and commitment to the relationship, trying to repair the relationship, and communicating more cooperatively. On the other hand, when the other person was not rewarding and when the hurt was seen as intentional, parties tended to respond by deescalating the relationship with distributive and vengeful behavior.

Scripts and expectancies are likely to be linked because we may have expectancies about scripts. Scripts describe sequences of expected behavior, while the expectancies that have been studied are for the most part single responses. It is a straightforward extension to posit that we are likely to have expectancies about the other’s part in a script, and that violations of the script elicit similar responses to violations of expectancies.

Expectancy violations theory also points to a connection between emotion and cognition in conflict. Expectancy violations trigger emotional responses, and these emotional responses tend to fuel responses to the violation (Burgoon et al., 1995; Guerrero, 2013). Assessments and reactions such as reciprocation, in turn, are likely to produce further emotional responses in both self and other, further shaping cognition and so on.

Not all expectancy violations are negative. In some cases, another may exceed our expectations. When this occurs, positive emotions and reciprocation of positive behavior follows. This suggests a way in which we can use expectancies to move toward productive conflict management and dampen escalation tendencies. In Case 2.5 we show how expectancy violations likely influenced the Parking Lot Scuffle.

Case Study 2.5 Expectancy Violations and the Parking Lot Scuffle

The beliefs and standards the two parties brought to the conflict set up expectations about how the other should behave. Jay expected Tim to accept responsibility for parking his moped in the wrong place. He expected Tim to graciously apologize and not fly off the handle. When Tim’s behavior and his accusation of Jay violated these expectations, Jay was taken aback and he experienced a rush of negative emotion. Jay did not expect to work with Tim in the future—after Tim’s behavior, he probably never wanted to see him again—so Tim had low potential reward value, and thus Jay was not willing to make excuses for Tim or accept his behavior.

Tim expected Jay to accept responsibility for the accident and offer to repair his moped. When Jay instead asserted his right to the parking spot and refused to accept responsibility, this violated Tim’s script for the conflict, and Tim’s anger about the accident itself was redirected to Jay. Tim also did not see Jay as potentially rewarding—in fact, he saw Jay more as a barrier to his goal of getting his moped fixed. So he, too, was unlikely to make excuses for Jay or forgive his violation of the script.

This mirroring of expectancy violations between Jay and Tim created a self-reinforcing cycle of negativity that ended in physical violence.

Discussion Question

What, if anything, could Jay have done to forestall the impact of expectancy violations on the conflict?

Attribution Processes: In a number of pathbreaking studies and theoretical analyses, Sillars and colleagues applied attribution theory to the study of interpersonal conflict processes (summarized in Sillars, Canary, & Tafoya, 2004). Before describing how this theory has been applied in the conflict arena, we will briefly discuss the nature of attribution processes (see Moskowitz, 2005 for more detail).

At the heart of attribution processes are two premises. First, people interpret behavior in terms of its causes. People naturally attribute characteristics, intentions, and attitudes that “cause” behavior to the people they encounter. Through this linking process, people attempt to organize and understand the world around them. Second, these causal explanations affect reactions to the judged behavior. Attributions enable actors to behave appropriately toward others in varying contexts.

When trying to make sense of others’ behavior, we scrutinize the environments, settings, and people’s actions in search of reasons behind their actions. After discovering a plausible reason or cause, the other’s behavior is attributed to one of two categories: dispositional factors or situational factors. For example, ability, mood, effort, and knowledge are dispositional causes arising from the individual, whereas task difficulty, interference, and luck

are causes considered to be situational in nature stemming from external sources. In other words, all factors internal to the individual are considered dispositional, and all factors external to the individual are deemed situational. Two critical biases influence the attributions that actors make.

First, individuals commonly attribute others’ behavior to dispositional factors and their own behavior to situational factors. This has been called the fundamental attribution error, and it is especially likely to occur when people believe others’ behavior is intentional and goal- directed. For example, when searching for reasons for our own behavior, such as nervousness in speaking situations, we commonly attribute our unease to the situation, but when confronted with a nervous speaker we are more apt to attribute his or her unease as a permanent feature of his or her character. The tendency for attributors to underestimate the influence of situational factors and overestimate dispositional factors in attributing others’ behavior is remarkably strong. This tendency occurs even when observers are told of this bias.

Second, to maintain and enhance self-esteem individuals often defensively attribute actions resulting in negative consequences to external forces and attribute positive consequences of the action to themselves. This self-serving bias is especially likely to occur in situations involving success and failure.

Attribution processes have important impacts on conflict interaction. In several studies, Sillars and his associates investigated three types of conflict management strategies that we have introduced and will continue to discuss throughout this book: integrative, avoidance, and distributive strategies. Sillars and colleagues defined integrative strategies as messages designed to manage conflict openly through discussion while refraining from negative evaluations of the partner. These benevolent strategies place a premium on collaboration and joint problem solving. Avoidance strategies were defined as attempts to avoid direct discussion and management of the conflict. These strategies include statements that deny the presence of conflicts, shift the focus of conversations, and sidestep discussions about conflict through indirect or ambiguous talk. In moderation, avoidance can be a useful strategy (see Chapter 4); but taken to the extreme it can be destructive, as noted in Chapter 1. Distributive strategies include attempts to resolve the conflict in a zero-sum manner in which one party wins at the others’ expense. Distributive messages often include negative evaluations of the partner, such as insults and direct criticism. Again, moderate use of distributive strategies can be productive, but excessive and rigid employment moves conflicts in negative directions, as we have seen in Chapter 1 and will develop further in Chapter 4.

Sillars’ research has made a strong case that a party’s attributions influence conflict interaction in at least three ways. First, due to the self-serving bias, people are more likely to attribute the negative effects of conflict to partners rather than to themselves. This tends to heighten resentment of others as the negative effects of conflict are felt, which in turn increases people’s likelihood of responding distributively. Second, also due to the self-serving bias, people more often think that they use integrative strategies (which are perceived as socially desirable and positive) and that others use distributive or avoidance tactics (Thomas & Pondy, 1977). This can lead parties to mistakenly assume that they are doing more to resolve the conflict than others are (Roloff & Wright, 2013).

Third, the fundamental attribution error heightens conflict by encouraging people to see others’ behavior as planned and intentional and their own as driven by the situation. So when

others act distributively or competitively, parties tend to view their actions as intentional aggression. On the other hand, if the party acts distributively toward others, there is a tendency for him or her to view this behavior as a natural response that is called for by the situation (e.g., the other’s distributive behavior). The result is that parties see their own behavior as caused by others and others’ behavior toward them as due to others’ intentional plans. So they grow angry with others who are acting distributively or avoiding, but they rationalize their own aggression as a sensible response to others. Clearly this sets up a vicious cycle whereby the party believes his or her distributive or avoidant behavior is justified by another’s bad intentions. Roloff and Miller (2006) substantiate this further in their summary of many studies that indicate that “making maladaptive attributions promotes negative conflict behavior” (p. 108).

One assumption underlying most attribution research is that the parties have common background knowledge. The fundamental attribution error and self-serving bias occur even in cases in which parties know each other quite well. However, in situations where parties come from very different backgrounds or social groups, errors of attribution are much more likely to occur. Parties from different cultures, genders, or economic classes are particularly prone to misattributions and misinterpretations of one another. Because they have little common experience and no common set of beliefs and values, parties from different groups are prone to major misunderstandings that include, but go well beyond, the two errors we have discussed.

A study by Weisinger and Salipante (1995) highlights serious misattributions between American and Japanese engineers who were asked to discuss the creation of joint business ventures. Parties on both sides tended to judge those of other cultures as less technically competent than they were due to different cultural norms about what competence was. Japanese engineers concluded that American engineers were not very good because they would not teach the Japanese engineers how they did certain types of analyses they employed. Such actions are valued in Japanese engineering culture because it emphasizes sharing responsibility and a team approach to design. However, in American engineering culture such actions signal disrespect for the professionalism of the other because fellow engineers are presumed to be competent due to their certification.

Weisinger and Salipante also found misunderstandings based on incorrect assumptions of shared “traits” of other cultures. For example, in a situation where Americans found out that the Japanese members of their joint venture had been solving joint venture problems among themselves parallel to work that the team was doing, the Americans attributed this to the “sneakiness” of the Japanese. Although cultures do share typical ways of thinking and doing things, there is little worth in such value-laden judgments. The Japanese were proceeding in a way common to their culture, thinking things through in a group, but the Americans, who valued open discussion and individual thinking, found this unacceptable and explained it in prejudicial terms. Note also that the Americans were engaging in the fundamental attribution error (attributing Japanese actions to bad intentions rather than to how things are done in Japanese culture), which compounded the misinterpretation.

Such misunderstandings are commonplace when people from different cultures and backgrounds come together. Attributions are made almost automatically, and generally people are not aware that their conclusions about others are based on faulty reasoning. When mistaken assumptions such as these drive behavior, they keep parties at a distance and feed

negative conflict cycles. Just as conflict is not static, the attributions made by individuals do not remain constant. As

a conflict unfolds, attributions may change, thereby promoting use of different strategies. In this sense, the strategies a person uses are part of an emergent process mediated by ongoing reevaluation and attribution. Sillars and Parry (1982) found that as stress levels during conflict situations increase, other-directed blame due to the fundamental attribution error also rises. Spontaneous verbal statements that provide integrative understandings decrease as stress increases.

On the whole, research and theory in this area can be summarized by three propositions. First, people choose conflict resolution strategies based on the attributions they make regarding the cause of the conflict. Second, biases in the attribution process tend to encourage noncooperative modes of conflict. Third, the choice of conflict strategies influences the likelihood of conflict resolution and the degree of satisfaction with the relationship. Case 2.6 considers the role of attributions in the Parking Lot Scuffle (p. 43).

What can we do about the negative impacts of attribution processes? Measures to enhance understanding and cut through mistaken assumptions are discussed throughout the remainder of the book. Chapter 8 discusses several structured methods for communication and problem solving that are particularly valuable in uncovering and correcting misunderstandings.

One important step in limiting the impact of attributions on conflict is to remember that attribution errors occur constantly and to be watchful for them. We have a tendency to make similar attributions in our conflict experiences across time, partners, and situations (Bono et al., 2002). Research has shown that attributions, once made, are difficult to dismiss. In part, this seems to be due to a lack of awareness of typical patterns. One useful corrective is to take attribution errors into account when we try to understand conflicts or disagreements. We can do this by remembering that we are very likely to misinterpret the behavior of people from different cultures, genders, and socioeconomic backgrounds, and it is important to understand their point of view.

Case Study 2.6 The Role of Attributions in the Parking Lot Scuffle

At the outset of the conflict, Jay engaged in somewhat tentative behavior and attempted to understand the situation and find answers to the dilemma. (Whether Jay’s line 2 stands as a question or an accusation is open to debate, but given the context of Jay’s justification in line 4, he deserves the benefit of the doubt.) When Jay saw Tim’s accusations, negative evaluations, insults, and insistence that Jay pay for repairs, he was likely to make a dispositional attribution that Tim was simply an unreasonable and irrational person. Along with this came a presumption of negative intent. This was likely to make Jay angry toward Tim, partly due to a need to defend himself and partly in response to Tim’s “unreasonable” reaction.

From the beginning, Tim attributed both the accident and the escalating conflict that follows to Jay. This dispositional attribution cast Jay as generally uncaring of others’ property and unw