Chapter Review
What is conflict and its causes?
When conflict occurs in a group, the actions or beliefs of one or more members of
the group are unacceptable to and resisted by one or more of the other members.
Intergroup conflict involves two or more groups, and intragroup conflict occurs
within a group.
Conflict follows a cycle from disagreement to conflict to escalation to de-
escalation to resolution.
Many group and individual factors conspire to create conflict in a group, but the
most common sources are competition, conflicts over the distribution of resources,
power struggles, task and process conflicts, and relationship conflicts.
Competing: Cooperation is associated with positive motivational and physiological
processes, whereas competition increases conflict by pitting members against one
another (Deutsch, 1949a).
Mixed-motive situations, like the prisoner’s dilemma game, tempt individuals to
compete rather than cooperate.
Behavioral assimilation is caused by the norm of reciprocity; competition sparks
competition (negative reciprocity) and cooperation (to a lesser extent) provokes
cooperation (positive reciprocity).
Choices in the PDG are influenced by situational factors (e.g., the name of the
game), personality factors (e.g., social value orientation; Van Lange et al., 1997),
sex, age, and the size of the incentives offered.
Although many educational settings stress competition, reviews conducted by
Johnson and Johnson (2009) suggest cooperation-based classrooms promote both
well-being and learning.
Sharing: Social dilemmas stimulate conflict by tempting members to act in their
own self-interest to the detriment of the group and its goals. Disputes arise when
members
exploit a shared resource (a commons dilemma or social trap),
do not contribute their share (a public goods dilemma, free riding),
disagree on the procedures to follow in dividing the resources (procedural justice)
and respond negatively to resource distributions (distributive justice),
do not agree on the norms to follow when apportioning resources (e.g., equality,
equity, power, responsibility, and need),
feel they are receiving less than they should, given their contribution to the group
(negative inequity; work by Brosnan and de Waal, 2003, suggests that other species
are sensitive to unfair distributions of resources), and
take more than their fair share of responsibility for a successful outcome
(egocentrism) or avoid blame for group failure (self-serving attributions of
responsibility).
Controlling: Power struggles are common in groups as members vie for control
over leadership, status, and position (Morrill, 1995).
Working: As group members collaborate on tasks, differences and disagreements
can generate task and process conflict.
Task conflict stems from disagreements about issues that are relevant to the group’s
goals and outcomes. Even though such substantive conflicts help groups reach
their goals, these disagreements can turn into personal, unpleasant conflicts.
Process conflicts occur when members do not agree on group strategies, policies,
and methods.
Groups, by dealing with work conflict, can improve their functioning, but in most
cases such conflict undermines productivity.
Liking and disliking: Relationship conflict occurs when individual members do not
like one another.
Any factor that causes disaffection between group members (e.g., differences in
attitudes and objectionable personal qualities) can increase personal conflict.
Balance theory predicts that group members will respond negatively when they
disagree with those they like or agree with those they dislike, but as Taylor’s
(1970) work confirmed, conflict is greatest when group members both disagree
with and dislike each other.
Why does conflict escalate?
When individuals defend their viewpoints in groups, they become more committed
to their positions, as illustrated by the dollar auction and reactance.
Conflict is exacerbated by members’ tendency to misperceive others and to assume
that the other party’s behavior is caused by personal (dispositional) rather than
situational (environmental) factors (fundamental attribution error).
As conflicts worsen, members shift from soft to hard tactics.
Pruitt and his colleagues (1997) found that individuals shift from soft tactics to
hard influence tactics when their initial requests are denied.
Deutsch and Krauss’s (1960) trucking game experiment indicated conflict escalates
when each side could threaten the other.
Other factors that contribute to the escalation of conflict in groups include
negative reciprocity, as when negative actions provoke negative reactions in others;
angry emotions that trigger expressions of anger among members; and
the formation of coalitions that embroil formerly neutral members in the conflict.
The level of incivility on the Internet is influenced by norms and community
sanctions against norm violators.
How can group members manage their conflicts?
In many cases, members use negotiation to resolve disagreements and disputes.
Distributive negotiation involves dividing up resources whereas integrative
negotiation involves identifying the issues underlying the dispute and then working
together to find a solution that is satisfying to all parties.
The Harvard Negotiation Project maintains that principled, integrative negotiation
is more effective than either soft or hard bargaining.
Because many conflicts are rooted in misunderstandings and misperceptions, group
members can reduce conflict by actively communicating information about their
motives and goals through discussion.
The dual concern model identifies four (or five) means of dealing with conflicts—
avoiding, yielding, fighting, and cooperating (and conciliation)—that differ along
two dimensions: concern for self and concern for others.
In some cases, cooperation is more likely to promote group unity.
Personal conflicts—those that are rooted in basic differences in attitude, outlook,
and so on—may not yield to cooperative negotiations. De Dreu (2010) suggests
that the avoiding method may be the best way to cope with such conflicts.
Other factors that contribute to the de-escalation of conflict in groups include
responding to competition with a tit-for-tat (TFT) strategy, as described by Axelrod
(1984);
