CONFLICT (TYPES AND CAUSES),CONFLICT

RESOLUTION (PEACEMAKING)

The word conflict has been derived from Latin Conflictus around early 15c.Com- "together" + Fligere "to strike”…. According to Oxford Dictionary A Conflict is “a

serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one”.

According to Merriam Webster “a struggle for power, property, etc.” is known to be a conflict.

So from above definitions we can say that conflict is a Disagreement or a struggle between 2 parties, ideas or entities.

Conflict

A perceived incompatibility of actions, goals, or ideas.(Myers, 2008) The elements of conflict are much the same at all levels, from nations at war, to cultural disputes within a society, to individuals in a marital dispute.

According to Erik Erikson's theory of psychosocial development, a conflict is a turning point during which an individual struggles to attain some psychological quality. Sometimes referred to as a psychosocial crisis, this can be a time of both vulnerability and strength, as the individual works toward success or failure

Conflict, in psychology, is the arousal of two or more strong motives that cannot be solved together.  A youngster, for example, may want to go to a dance to feel that he belongs to a group and does what his friends do. 

Coser(1956): Conflict is a struggle between opponents over values and claims to scarce status, power and resources.

Deutsch(1973): Conflict takes place whenever incompatible activities occur.

Pruitt & Rubin(1986): Conflict is a perceived divergence of interests, or a belief that the party`s current aspirations cannot be achieved simultaneously.

According to Colman ‘A conflict is the anticipated frustration entailed in the choice of either alternative’. Conflicts occur in the individual when more than one, equally powerful desires or motives present at the same time and pressurize for immediate satisfaction.

According to Tajfel(1979) Conflict refers to anytime you have opposing or incompatible actions, objectives, or ideas. Conflicts can be between two people, countries, groups, or even within one person (an internal conflict). Conflicts are problematic and must be addressed in order to have peace, productivity, or harmony.

Park and Burgess (1921), likewise, treat conflict as a distinct form of competition. ‘Both are forms of interaction but competition is a struggle between individuals or groups of individuals who are not necessarily in contact and communication while conflict is a contest in which contact is an indispensable condition.’

According to Max Weber (1968), ‘a social relationship will be referred to as conflict in so far as action within it is oriented intentional to carrying out the actor’s own will against the resistance of the other party or parties’. Thus, the social interaction of conflict is defined by the desire of each participant to impose his will upon the other’s resistance.

Gillin and Gillin (1948) wrote: ‘Conflict is the social process in which individuals or groups seek their ends by directly challenging the antagonist by violence or threat of violence.’

To sum up, it may be said that conflict refers to the struggle in which competing parties, attempting to reach a goal, strive to eliminate an opponent by making the other party ineffectual or by annihilation.

1. It is a universal process found in every society. 2. It is the result of deliberate and conscious efforts of

individuals or the groups. 3. The nature of the conflict is personal and direct. In

conflict the incumbents or participants know each other personally.

4. It is basically an individual process. Its aim is not directly connected with the achievement of the goal or an objective but is rather directed to dominate others or to eliminate the opponent.

5. Conflict is of brief duration, temporary and intermittent in character. But, once begun, the conflict process is hard to stop. It tends to grow more and more bitter as it proceeds. Being temporary, it gives way to some form of accommodation.

Characteristics (nature) of conflict,

6. It is a process loaded with impulsiveness of human emotions and violent passions. It gains force and then bursts open. Unlike fighting of animals, generally in human groups, the spontaneous fighting is inhibited. It is often avoided through the process of accommodation and assimilation.

7. It may be latent or overt. In the latent form, it may exist in the form of tension, dissatisfaction, contravention and rivalry. It becomes overt when an issue is declared and a hostile action is taken.

8. It is cumulative; each act of aggression usually promotes a more aggressive rebuttal. Thus, termination of conflict is not easy.

9. Groups previously in conflict may co-operate to achieve a goal considered important enough for them to unite despite their differences.

10. It may emerge as a result of opposing interests. It is layered in a history of binary perceptions: exile/homeland, outsider/insider, us/them, patriotic/unpatriotic.

11. It has both disintegrative and integrative effects. It disrupts unity in a society and is a disturbing way of setting issues. A certain account of internal conflict, however, may serve indirectly to stimulate group inter action. External conflict can have positive effects by unifying the group.

According to… Wilmot and Hocker, 1998; Lulofs, 1994; McCorkle and

Mills, 1992; McKinney, Kimsey, and Fuller, 1995.

1. Conflict requires at least two entities.(Be it ideas, people, parties etc.) 

2. Conflict inherently involves some sense of struggle or incompatibility or perceived difference among values, goals, or desires.

3. Action, whether overt or covert, is key to conflict. Until action or expression occurs, conflict is latent, lurking below the surface.

4. Power or attempts to influence inevitably occur within conflicts. If the parties really don't care about the outcome, the discussion probably doesn't rise to the level where we call it a conflict. When people argue without caring about what happens next or without a sense of involvement and struggle, it probably is just a disagreement.

5. Conflicts give rise to a lot of tension in the individual(s) , he becomes completely disturbed. Tension continues until a decision is taken and conflict is resolved.

Conflict also can be understood by examining what it is not:  

Conflict is not a breakdown in communication, but a process that is on-going. Conflict entails communication about disagreements.

Conflict is not inherently good or bad. While people may tend to remember only the conflicts that were painful, conflict itself is a normal part of being human. It is normal in relationships for differences to occur occasionally, just as it is normal in businesses for changes in goals and directions to occur. Conflict is normal.

Conflict is not automatically resolved by communication. Managing conflicts productively is a skill.

Approach-approach conflict: occurs when you must choose between two desirable outcomes.

Avoidance-avoidance conflict: occurs when you must choose between two unattractive outcomes. 

Approach-avoidance: exists when ONE event or goal has both attractive and unattractive features. 

Multiple approach-avoidance conflicts: here you must choose between two or more things, each of which has both desirable and undesirable features. 

Types of Conflict

In this type of conflict individual will have two desires with positive valence which are equally powerful. For example, a person has two attractive job offers and he has to choose any one of them- tension arises.

Such conflicts are not so harmful, because after selecting one, the other one automatically subsides or loses its importance to him. But in some situation choice will be very difficult. For example, a girl has to choose either loving parents or a boy friend for inter-caste marriage. Such cases are like ‘you cannot have the cake and eat it too’.

The individual will be psychologically torn and may lose equilibrium. This type of conflict is diagrammatically represented in Figure.

Approach-approach conflict:

This conflict involves two goals with negative valence. At times the individual is forced to choose one among two negative goals. In such conflicts, both are unwanted goals, but he cannot keep quiet without opting also. For example, a woman must work at a job which she dislikes very much or else she has to remain unemployed.

Here the individual is caught between two repelling threats, fears or situations. When she cannot choose either of them she may try to escape from the field itself. But the consequences of the escape may also be harmful. For example, a person who cannot convince the mother or the wife may resort to Alcohol consumption which is otherwise dangerous or some people may even commit suicide. Such type of conflict is diagrammatically represented in Figure

In the event of such conflicts when there is no way to escape- some people may find a way to reduce their tension by developing ‘amnesia’ or defence mechanisms like regression or fantasy.

Avoidance-avoidance conflict:

This is also a most complex conflict and very difficult to resolve. Because in this type of conflict a person is both attracted and repelled by the same goal object. Here the goal object will have both positive and negative valences.

The positive valence attracts the person, but as he approaches, the negative valence repels him back. Attraction of the goal and inability to approach it leads to frustration and tension.

For example, a person is approaching to accept a job offer, because the salary is attractive- but at the same time he is repelled back as the job is very risky. A man wants to marry to lead a family life, but does not want the responsibilities of family life. This type of conflict is diagrammatically represented in Figure.

Approach-avoidance conflict:

 Some of the situations in life we come across will involve both positive and negative valences of multiple nature. Suppose a woman is engaged to be married. The marriage to her has positive valences like-providing security to life and marrying a person whom she loves very much.

Suppose, on the other hand, if the marriage is repellent to her because she has to quit her attractive job and salary, recognition which makes her dependent, the situation builds up tension in her.

The resolution of this conflict depends upon the sum total of both valences. If the sum total of attractive valence takes upper hand, she will quit the job and go for marriage; otherwise she may reject marriage and continue the job if the sum total of negative valence is powerful. This type of conflict is shown diagrammatically in Figure

Multiple-approach-avoidance conflict:

Intrapersonal conflict- occurs within a person when (s)he has to compare and decide between 2 or more options. For example, a secretary may have to lie on instructions that her boss is not in

the office to avoid an unwanted visitor or an unwanted telephone call. This may cause a conflict within the mind of the secretary who may have

developed an ethic of telling the truth. Similarly, many Indians who are vegetarians and come to America and find it very hard to remain vegetarians may question the necessity of the vegetarian philosophy thus causing a conflict in their minds.

Role conflict- involves very real differences in role definitions, expectations or responsibilities between individuals who are interdependent in a social system.

In addition to these value conflicts, a person may be faced with a role conflict. For example, a telephone operator may be advised and required to be polite to

the customers by her supervisor, who may also complain that she is spending too much time with her customers. This would cause a role conflict in her mind.

Similarly a police officer may be invited to his brother’s wedding where he may find that some guests are using drugs which are against the law. It may cause conflict in his mind as to which role he should play – as of a brother or as of a police officer. Conflict within an individual can also arise when a person has to choose between two equally desirable alternatives or between two equally undesirable goals

Levels of Conflict

Interpersonal conflict- occurs when two people have incompatible needs, goals, or approaches in their relationship.Interpersonal conflict involves conflict between two or more individuals and is probably the most common and most recognized conflict. Similarly, if there are two equally deserving professors and they are both up for promotion, but only one of them can be promoted because of budget and positional constraints, then this could result in interpersonal conflict between the two professors. Intergroup conflict- occurs between collections of people such as ethnic or racial groups, departments or levels of decision making in the same organization, and union and management.An organization is an interlocking network of groups, departments, sections or work teams. The intergroup conflicts are not so much personal in nature as they are due to factors inherent in the organizational structure. For example, there is active and continuous conflict between the union and the management..

 Inter-organizational conflict:Conflict also occurs between organizations which are dependent upon each other in some way. This conflict may be between buyer organizations and supplier organizations about quantity, quality and delivery times of raw materials and other policy issues.Such conflict could also be between unions and organizations employing their members, between government agencies that regulate certain organizations and the organizations that are affected by them.

Conflict between the individual and the group: All formal groups and informal groups have

established certain norms of behaviour and operational standards which all members are expected to adhere to. An individual member may want to remain within the group for social needs but may disagree with the group goals and the methods to achieve such goals.

For example, in some restaurants, all tips are shared equally by all waiters and waitresses. Some particular waitress who may be overly polite and efficient may feel that she deserves more, thus causing conflict between her and the group. Similarly, if a group is going on strike for some reasons, some members of the group may not agree with these reasons or simply may not be economically able to afford to go on strike, thus causing conflict with the group.

CAUSES/SOURCES OF CONFLICT

Social Dilemm

asCompeti

tion

Perceived

InjusticeMisperception

Social dilemmas◦ A social dilemma is a situation in which an individual profits

from selfishness unless everyone chooses the selfish alternative, in which case the whole group loses.

◦ Individuals must choose between maximizing their personal outcomes and maximizing their group’s outcomes.

Social dilemmas involve a conflict between immediate self-interest and longer-term collective interests. These are challenging situations because acting in one’s immediate self-interest is tempting to everyone involved, even though everybody benefits from acting in the longer-term collective interest.

Social Dilemma

A social dilemma is a collective action situation in which there is a conflict between individual and collective interest. (Kollock, P., "Social Dilemmas: The Anatomy of Cooperation“)

It is a situation in which individuals could do better if they either changed their strategies or changed the rules of the game.

Another informal definition is that a social dilemma "is defined by two properties: (a) each individual receives a higher payoff for a socially defecting choice ... than for a socially cooperative choice, no matter what the other individuals do, but (b) all individuals are all better off if all cooperate than if all defect . (Dawes, Robyn, "Social Dilemmas”)

Many real-life situations similarly pit our individual interests against our communal well-being. Individual whalers reasoned that the few whales they took would not threaten the species and that if they didn’t take them others would anyway.

The result: Some species of whales became endangered.

A situation in which the conflicting parties, by each rationally pursuing its self interests become caught in mutually destructive behavior.

Examples Prisoner’s dilemma and The Tragedy of the Commons…

Social Traps

The prisoner's dilemma is a paradox in decision analysis in which two individuals acting in their own best interest pursue a course of action that does not result in the ideal outcome.(Rapoport, 1968)

The Prisoner’s Dilemma

Dawes in 1991 after a analysis and Meta analysis

of more than 2000 studies has concluded The typical prisoner's dilemma is set up in such a

way that both parties choose to protect themselves at the expense of the other participant. As a result of following a purely logical thought process to help oneself, both participants find themselves in a worse state than if they had cooperated with each other in the decision-making process.

In a laboratory version to the above dilemma similar results were found out by Shergill et al. in 2003 and Anderson et al in 2008.

The tragedy of the commons  is a term coined by scientist Garrett Hardin in 1968 describing what can happen in groups when individuals act in their own best self interests and ignore what’s best for the whole group.

A group of herdsmen shared a communal pasture, so the story goes, but some realized that if they increased their own herd, it would greatly benefit them. However, increasing your herd without regard to the resources available also brings unintentional tragedy — in the form of the destruction of the common grazing area.

The Tragedy of the Commons 

Tragedy of the Commons The “commons” is any shared resource, including air, water, energy sources, and food supplies. The tragedy occurs when individuals consume more than their share, with the cost of their doing so dispersed among all, causing the ultimate collapse—the tragedy—of the commons.

When resources are not partitioned, people often consume more than they realize (Herlocker & others, 1997). As a bowl of mashed potatoes is passed around a table of 10, the first few diners are more likely to scoop out a disproportionate share than when a platter of 10 chicken drumsticks is passed.

THE FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR First, both games tempt people to explain their

own behaviour situationally (“I had to protect myself against exploitation by my opponent”) and to explain their partners’ behaviour dispositionally (“she was greedy,” “he was untrustworthy”). Most never realize that their counterparts are viewing them with the same fundamental attribution error (Gifford & Hine, 1997; Hine & Gifford, 1996). People with self inflating, self-focused narcissistic tendencies are especially unlikely to empathize with others’ perspectives (Campbell & others, 2005).

The Prisoner’s Dilemma and the Tragedy of the Commons games have several similar features

EVOLVING MOTIVES Second, motives often change. At first, people are

eager to make some easy money, then to minimize their losses, and finally to save face and avoid defeat (Brockner & others, 1982; Teger, 1980).

OUTCOMES NEED NOT SUM TO ZERO Third, most real-life conflicts, like the Prisoner’s

Dilemma and the Tragedy of the Commons, are non-zero-sum games. The two sides’ profits and losses need not add up to zero. Both can win; both can lose.

Non-zero-sum games - Games in which outcomes need not sum to zero. With cooperation, both can win; with competition, both can lose. (Also called mixed motive situations. )

REGULATION- It is a very basic step we can take and implement to resolve social dilemmas.

Fishing and hunting have long been regulated by local seasons and limits; at the global level, an International Whaling Commission sets an agreed-upon “harvest” that enables whales to regenerate. Likewise, where fishing industries, such as the Alaskan halibut fishery, have implemented “catch shares”—guaranteeing each fisher a percentage of each year’s allowable catch—competition and overfishing have been greatly reduced (Costello & others, 2008).

RESOLVING SOCIAL DILEMMAS

SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL There is another way to resolve social dilemmas: Make the group small. In a small commons, each person feels more responsible and effective (Kerr, 1989). As a group grows larger, people become more likely to think, “I couldn’t have made a difference anyway”—a common excuse for non cooperation (Kerr & Kaufman-Gilliland, 1997).

COMMUNICATION To resolve a social dilemma, people must communicate. In the laboratory as in real life, group communication sometimes degenerates into threats and name-calling (Deutsch & Krauss, 1960). More often, communication enables people to cooperate (Bornstein & others, 1988, 1989).

Hostilities often arise when groups compete for scarce jobs, housing, or resources. When interests clash, conflict erupts.

Competition breeds conflict especially when people perceive that resources such as money, jobs, or power are limited on a zero-sum basis (one`s gain is another`s loss), and a distinct out-group stands out as a potential competitor (Esses & others, 2005).

COMPETITION

In an experiment to test the intensity of influence competition has on conflict, Muzafer Sherif (1966), used two groups of boys to test if limited resources shared between the two groups would lead to conflict. Unaware of the other group, Sherif had the boys in each group work together to build their campsites and let them get aquatinted with one another. After friendships had been formed he introduced the two groups to each other by putting one group on the baseball field at the same time the other group was supposed to use it. This sudden fear of losing their resources to the other group led the boys to strengthen their camaraderie within their respective groups by mutual hostility towards the rival group, where even affiliation to the group meant immediate blacklisting.

ROBBER”S CAVE EXPERIMENT….Realistic Group Conflict….

Perceived Injustice“That’s unfair!” “What a rip-off!” “We deserve better!”Such comments typify conflicts bred by perceived injusticeWhat is Justice: -People perceive justice as equity- the distribution of rewards in proportion to individuals’ contributions (Walster & others, 1978).If you contribute more and benefit less than I do, you will feel exploited and irritated; I may feel exploitative and guilty. Chances are, though, that you will be more sensitive to the inequity than I will (Greenberg, 1986; Messick & Sentis, 1979).

When one feels as though their contribution to the group is worthy of a greater reward, they are either reminded of their inadequacies and become submissive to their superiors, use personal attacks or black-mail to get what they want, or actually revolt against their superiors and try to overthrow them(Elaine Hatfield, William Walster, Ellen Pzersheid, 1978). On the other hand, it is very unlikely that someone will bring attention to themselves if they feel they are receiving more for their contribution than necessary. In these cases many will convince themselves that their work is worthy of extra benefits. Also if one is made aware that their skills exceed their reward they are more likely to argue their worth, “The more competent and worthy people feel, (the more they value their inputs), the more they will feel under benefitted and thus eager to retaliate”(Ross & others, 1971).

Since conflict is the product of a perceived incompatibility, it is likely that by misperception of others actions, most conflicts are created. This coincides with the concept of a self-serving bias, in that we often take credit for our successes but justify our mistakes. At the same time we tend to judge others’ actions or motives more harshly than our own, leading us to condemn others prematurely. We can also attribute the fundamental attribution error to our misperceptions in the sense that we are more likely to be less considerate of others external circumstances that factor into their actions, and this gives us a one-dimensional perception of the other which can be very inaccurate.

Misperception

Misperception

True incompatibility

misperception

Many conflicts contain but a small truly incompatible goals.The bigger problem is the misperceptions of the other’s motives and goals.

Seeds of Misperception

Self-serving bias

In-group bias

Fundamental

attribution error

Polarize

Stereotype

Preconceptions

Self-justify

Groupthink

MIRROR IMAGE PERCEPTION

This the condition of reciprocal views of each other often held by parties in conflict; for example, each may view itself as moral and peace-loving and the other as evil and aggressive.

 It is common for two rival groups to hold each other responsible for same crimes and to consider themselves moral and virtuous for the same reasons (Morton Deutsch, 1986). This is often the case in wartime, we see people in only one of two categories; “for us or against us”. In modern warfare it is seen as more diplomatic however for us to say that it is not the general public that we are at war with, but the evil regime that has contaminated it’s people that we are against. This also gives us the appeal of a knight in shining armour, trying to save the “good people” from their “evil leaders”.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION (PEACEMAKING) Social psychologists have focused on four strategies

for conflict resolution or peacemaking.

CONTACT

COOPERATION

COMMUNICATION

CONCILIATION

4 Cs

  •  Does desegregation improve racial attitudes? Sometimes.

  •  When does desegregation improve racial attitudes? When there is equal status contact.

Many studies confirm the correlation between contact and positive attitudes. For example, the more interracial contact South African Blacks and Whites have, the more sympathetic their policy attitudes are to those of the other group (Dixon & others, 2007). Anti-gay feeling is lower among people who know gays personally (Herek, 1993).

In colleges and universities, informal interactions enabled by classroom ethnic diversity pay dividends for all students(Gurin et al, 2002). Such interactions tend to be intellectually growth-promoting and to foster greater acceptance of difference.

CONTACT

A cooperative approach aligns with the process which leads parties to seek win-win solutions. Disputants that work cooperatively to negotiate a solution are more likely to develop a relationship of trust and come up with mutually beneficial options for settlement.

In a recent study, white youths on a two to three week expedition involving intimate contact and cooperation expressed improved attitudes towards Blacks a month after the expedition if they had been randomly assigned to an interracial expedition group(Green & Wong, 2008).

   •  occurs when there is a common external threat.    •  occurs when there is a superordinate goal.     •  occurs when there is a cooperative learning environment.

Cooperation

Conflicting parties have other ways to resolve their differences. They can communicate by bargaining, mediation, or arbitration.

Bargaining: Seeking an agreement to a conflict through direct negotiation between parties.

Tough bargaining may lower the other party`s expectations, making the other side willing to settle for less(Yukl, 1974).

Mediation: An attempt by a neutral third party to resolve a conflict by facilitating communication and offering suggestions. A third party mediator may offer suggestions that enable conflicting parties to make concessions and still save face (Pruitt, 1998).

Arbitration: Resolution of a conflict by a neutral third party who studies both sides and imposes a settlement. This is a commonly used practice in legal disagreements as an alternative to the lengthy and expensive process of going to court.

Communication

Conciliation is a conflict resolution process whereby the parties agree to utilize the services of a conciliator, who then meets with the parties separately in an attempt to resolve their differences. The main goal is to conciliate, most of the time by seeking concessions.

For example, in the 1970s small concessions by Israel and Egypt (such as Israel allowing Egypt to open uo the Suez Canal, Egypt allowing ships bound for Israel to pass through) helped reduce tension to a point where the negotiations became possible (Rubin, 1981). 

•  Two important linkage strategies deserve attention here. One is Graduated Reciprocation In Tension-reduction (GRIT), & the other is a Tit-For-Tat (TFT) strategy.

•  In the GRIT strategy, one of the parties in a conflict unilaterally initiates a series of cooperative moves; these are announced & reciprocity is invited, but the conciliatory moves are continued for an extended period, even without immediate reciprocity.

Conciliation

CONCLUSION Although conflicts are readily kindled and fueled by

social dilemmas, competition, perceived injustice, and misperceptions, some equally powerful forces such as contact, cooperation, communication, and conciliation can transform hostility into harmony.

Contacts are especially beneficial when people work together to overcome a common threat. Several research teams have replaced competitive classroom learning situations with opportunities for cooperative learning.

Sometimes when genuine communication is impossible, small conciliatory gestures by one party may elicit reciprocal conciliatory acts by the other party.