The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)

by Peter T Coleman

  Addressing these questions directly, Coleman et al. (2013a) have begun to identify fundamental dimensions of the situation that influence a mediator’s strategy and the process and outcome of mediation. They suggest a situated model of mediation, which asserts that mediator success depends on the situation and the mediator’s capacity to adopt strategies appropriate to it. Predictions from this model need to be tested empirically.

  Fisher and Keashly (1990) have grappled with the third question, distinguishing four levels of escalation that require different approaches to third-party intervention:

  Discussion, in which the parties have a good relationship but are unable to solve a particular problem. Here, relationship building is unnecessary and traditional mediation is fully appropriate.

  Polarization, in which “trust and respect are threatened, and distorted perceptions and simplified stereotypes emerge” (pp. 236–237). Here relationship building is necessary before moving to traditional mediation.

  Segregation, in which the parties are competitive and hostile.

  Destruction, in which the main aim of the parties is to hurt or destroy each other.

  At these last two levels of escalation, relationship building is not feasible, and the mediator should try to contain the conflict by taking firm steps to stop hostile action. If such steps are successful, it may be possible to turn to relationships and substantive issues. Firm action of this kind requires some form of mediator power.

  Fisher and Keashly’s elegant model was developed in the context of international and ethnopolitical conflict, but it seems equally appropriate to conflict between individuals and between small groups. The model clearly needs empirical test, preferably in several different settings. Taking firm steps to stop hostile action (also advocated by Saposnek, 2005, for divorce mediation) is 180 degrees antithetical to the nondirective approach of transformative mediation, a discrepancy that needs to be sorted out empirically.

  The importance of taking a contingent approach is also argued by Dugan (2001), who suggests that the source of a conflict may lie at any of three levels: the issues under dispute, the relationship between the parties, and the broader social system. Conflicts are usually presented in terms of surface issue but on deeper probing are found to derive from flawed relationships or a problematic social system. An example of the latter would be a conflict between two brothers over an old piece of furniture that turns out to hinge on a cultural norm that the older son inherits his parents’ property—a norm that the older brother accepts and the younger one rejects (Pruitt and Kim, 2004). Dugan argues that systems conflicts cannot be solved by dealing with the presenting issues or trying to improve the parties’ relationship. Instead, the underlying structural problem must be addressed.

  In a study of the mediation methods used by the National Institutes of Health Office of the Obmudsman, Kressel and Gadlin (2009) found evidence of a search for underlying structures similar to that prescribed by Dugan. In a series of case studies, they found that the mediators began with a diagnostic phase in which they classified most of the controversies as deriving from one of three underlying difficulties: a dysfunctional communication pattern, a supervisor blocking the scientific autonomy of a rising new investigator, or weak program administration. In some cases, they were able to work on the underlying difficulty, while in others, the disputants insisted on a more superficial, issue-based approach. Similar diagnostic templates are sometimes used by family therapists, who classify cases as arising from such standard causes as parental blockage of adolescent efforts to break away or the husband retreats–wife pursues pattern. It is possible that professional mediators often develop a typology of underlying causes in the realm of their practice and use this typology to diagnose new cases. If so, our field needs more in-depth case studies like that done by Kressel and Gadlin and broader theoretical work once they have been done.

  Multiple Mediators

  Sometimes more than one mediator is involved with a dispute. For example, in formal comediation, two trained mediators are assigned to a case. Differences between these mediators often mirror differences between the disputants—for example, black and Hispanic mediators when one disputant is black and the other Hispanic. The pluses and minuses of comediation need theoretical analysis and empirical test.

  In emergent mediation, two or more mediators may form a communication chain between the disputants. For example, in Northern Ireland in the early 1990s, a chain went from Sinn Fein (the political wing of the Irish Republic Army) to the SDLP (a moderate Catholic political party) to the government of Northern Ireland and then to the government of Great Britain (Pruitt, 2007). It can be argued that such chains are useful for two reasons: (1) there is greater understanding and trust between parties adjacent in the chain than between the parties at either end, and (2) chain length makes it hard for hawks in each camp to detect and thwart peacemaking efforts. Research is needed to fully understand the functions of such chains, the conditions under which they form, the extent of their success, and how chain users cope with the inevitable distortions in messages that are transmitted through chains.

  Sometimes disputants communicate through two or more chains simultaneously. For example, during part of the time in which the chain in Northern Ireland was operating, Sinn Fein and the British government were also communicating through a mysterious individual known as the “contact” (Mallie and McKittrick, 1996). Scholarly opinion differs on whether such multiplicity contributes to (Pruitt, 2003) or detracts from (Crocker, Hampson, and Aall, 1999; Wanis-St. John, 2006) successful conflict resolution. This dispute needs to be sorted out empirically.

  CONCLUSION

  In this chapter, we have identified a number of questions that need to be answered, outlined some possible theoretical directions for answering these questions, suggested some testable hypotheses, and proposed some research methods. In doing so, we are under no illusion that we have made a significant dent in the research program that is needed for our field. That would be impractical in a chapter of this length and impossible for two scholars to achieve. Rather, we have explored the issues and ideas we know best. It is likely that other authors would come up with very different agendas. Our hope is that a few of you have found in this chapter an idea or two that will stimulate future research.

  References

  Albrecht, B. 2010. “Multicultural Challenges for Restorative Justice: Mediators’ Experiences from Norway and Finland.” Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention 11:3–24.

  Azar, E. E. 1990. The Management of Protracted Social Conflict. Hampshire, UK: Dartmouth.

  Back, K. W. 1951. “Influence through Social Communication.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 46:9–23.

  Berkowitz, L. 1993. Aggression: Its Causes, Consequences, and Control. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  Bollen, K., H. Ittner, and M. C. Euwema. 2012. “Mediating Hierarchical Labor Conflicts: Procedural Justice Makes a Difference—for Subordinates.” Group Decision and Negotiation 21:621–636.

  Bradbury, T. N., and F. D. Fincham. 1992. “Attributions and Behavior in Marital Interaction.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63:613–628.

  Brodbeck, F. C., K. G. Kugler, J. A. Fischer, J. Heinze, and D. Fischer. 2011. “Team Level Integrative Complexity: Enhancing Differentiation and Integration in Group Decision Making.” WOP working paper no. 2011/2. Retrieved from www.psy.lmu.de/wirtschaftspsychologie/forschung/working_papers/index.html

  Bui-Wrzosinska, L. 2005. The Dynamics of Conflict in a School Setting. Unpublished master’s thesis, Warsaw School for Social Psychology.

  Burton, J. W. 1990. Conflict: Human Needs Theory. London: Macmillan.

  Bush, R.A.B., and J. P. Folger. 2005. The Promise of Mediation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  Carnevale, P. J., and A. M. Isen. 1986. “The Influence of Positive Affect and Visual Access on the Discovery of Integrative Solutions in Bilateral Negotiation.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro
cesses, 37:1–13.

  Cobb, S. 2003. “Fostering Coexistence in Identity-Based Conflicts.” In Imagine Coexistence, edited by A. Chayes and M. Minow, 294–309. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  Coleman, P. T. 2011. The Five Percent. Resolving the Small Percentage of Seemingly Intractable Conflicts. New York: Public Affairs.

  Coleman, P. T., J. S. Goldman, and K. Kugler. 2009. “Emotional Intractability: Gender, Anger, Aggression and Rumination in Conflict.” International Journal of Conflict Management 20:113–131.

  Coleman, P. T., and K. G. Kugler. 2011. “Tracking Managerial Conflict Adaptivity: Introducing a Dynamic Measure of Adaptive Conflict Management in Organizations.” WOP working paper no. 2011/4. Retrieved from www.psy.lmu.de/wirtschaftspsychologie/forschung/working_papers/index.html

  Coleman, P. T., K. G. Kugler, L. Bui-Wrzosinska, A. Nowak, and R. Vallacher. 2012. “Getting Down to Basics: A Situated Model of Conflict in Social Relations.” Negotiation Journal 28:7–43.

  Coleman, P. T., K. G. Kugler, C. Gozzi, K. Mazzaro, and N. El Zokm. 2013a. “Putting the Peaces Together: Introducing a Situated Model of Mediation.” WOP working paper no. 2013/4. Retrieved from www.psy.lmu.de/wirtschaftspsychologie/forschung/working_papers/index.html

  Coleman, P. T., K. G. Kugler, A. Mitchinson, C. Chung, and N. Musallam. 2010. “The View from Above and Below: The Effects of Power and Interdependence Asymmetries on Conflict Dynamics and Outcomes in Organizations.” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 3:283–311.

  Coleman, P. T., Kugler, K., Mitchinson, A., & Foster, C. 2013b. “Navigating Conflict and Power at Work: The Effects of Power and Interdependence Asymmetries on Conflict in Organizations.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 43(10):1963–1983.

  Coleman, P. T., and Kugler, K. G. and Vallacher, R. 2011. “Regulatory Focus Dynamics and Conflict: Investigating the Relationship and Ratios of Prevention and Promotion Orientations to Social Conflict.” Paper presented at the 24th annual conference of the International Association of Conflict Management in Istanbul, Turkey. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1872655 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1872655

  Coleman, P. T., R. Vallacher, A. Nowak, and L. Bui-Wrzosinska. 2007. “Intractable Conflict as an Attractor: Presenting a Dynamical Model of Conflict, Escalation, and Intractability.” American Behavioral Scientist 50:1454–1475.

  Conlon, D. E. 2005. “Mediation and the Fourfold Model of Justice.” In The Blackwell Handbook of Mediation, edited by M. S. Herrman, Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

  Crocker, C. A., F. O. Hampson, and P. Aall.1999. Herding Cats: Multiparty Mediation in a Complex World. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace.

  Dahrendorf, R. 1959. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  de Dreu, C.K.W. 2002. “Team Innovation and Team Effectiveness: The Importance of Minority Dissent and Reflexivity.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 11:285–298.

  de Dreu, C.K.W. 2008. “The Virtue and Vice of Workplace Conflict: Food for (Pessimistic) Thought.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 29:5–18.

  de Dreu, C.K.W. 2010. “Social Conflict: The Emergence and Consequences of Struggle and Negotiation.” In Handbook of Social Psychology (5th ed.), edited by S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, and G. Lindzey. New York: Wiley.

  de Dreu, C.K.W., N. K. De Vries, H. Franssen, and W.M.M. Altink. 2000. “Minority Dissent in Organizations: Factors Influencing Willingness to Dissent.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30:2451–2466.

  de Dreu, C.K.W., and L. R. Weingart, 2003. “Task versus Relationship Conflict, Team Performance, and Team Member Satisfaction: A Meta-analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88:741–749.

  de Dreu, C.K.W., L. R. Weingart, and S. Kwon. 2000. “Influence of Social Motives on Integrative Negotiation: A Meta-analytic Review and Test of Two Theories.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78:889–905.

  de Dreu, C. K., and M. A. West. 2001. “Minority Dissent and Team Innovation: The Importance of Participation in Decision Making.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 1191–1201.

  de Wit, F.R.C., L. L. Greer, and K. A. Jehn. 2012. “The Paradox of Intragroup Conflict: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology 97:360–90.

  Deutsch, M. 1973. The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  Deutsch. 2006. “Justice and Conflict.” In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, edited by M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, and E. C. Marcus. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  Dion, K. L. 1986. “Responses to Perceived Discrimination and Relative Deprivation.” In Relative Deprivation and Social Comparison/The Ontario Symposium (vol. 4), edited by J. M. Olson, C. P. Herman, and M. P. Zanna. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  Druckman, D. 2001. “Turning Points in International Negotiations: A Comparative Analysis. “Journal of Conflict Resolution 45: 519–544.

  Druckman, D. 2003. “Puzzles in Search of Researchers: Processes, Identities, and Situations.” International Journal of Conflict Management 14:3–22.

  Dubé, L., and S. Guimond. 1986. “Relative Deprivation and Social Protest.” In Relative Deprivation and Social Comparison/The Ontario Symposium (vol. 4), edited by J. M. Olson, C. P. Herman, and M. P. Zanna. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  Dugan, M. A. 2001. “Imaging the Future: A Tool for Conflict Resolution.” In Peacebuilding: A Field Guide, edited by L. Reychler and T. Paffenholz. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

  Fisher, R. J. 1997. Interactive Conflict Resolution. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

  Fisher, R. J., and L. Keashly. 1990. “A Contingency Approach to Third Party Intervention.” In The Social Psychology of Intergroup and International Conflict Resolution, edited by R. J. Fisher. New York: Springer-Verlag.

  Forgas, J. P. 1994. “Sad and Guilty? Affective Influences on the Explanation of Conflict in Close Relationships.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66:56–68.

  Forgas, J. P. 1998. “On Feeling Good and Getting Your Way: Mood Effects on Negotiator Cognition and Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74:565–577.

  Gelfand, M. J., V. Smith, J. Raver, L. Nishii, L., and K. O’Brien. 2006. “Negotiating Relationally: The Dynamics of the Relational Self in Negotiations.” Academy of Management Review 3:427–445.

  Gurr, T. R. 1996. “Minorities, Nationalists, and Ethnopolitical Conflict.” In Managing Global Chaos: Sources of and Responses to International Conflict, edited by C. Crocker and F. Hampson. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press.

  Herrman, M. S. 2006. “Introduction.” In The Handbook of Mediation: Bridging Theory, Research, and Practice, edited by M. S. Herrman. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

  Isen, A. M., and P. F. Levin. 1972. “Effect of Feeling Good on Helping: Cookies and Kindness.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21:384–388.

  Isenberg, D. J. 1986. “Group Polarization: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50:1141–1151.

  Kelman, H. C. 2002. “Interactive Problem Solving: Informal Mediation by the Scholar-Practitioner.” In Studies in International Mediation, edited by J. Bercovitch. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  Kramer, R. M. 2004. “The ‘Dark Side’ of Social Context: The Role of Intergroup Paranoia in Intergroup Negotiations.” In The Handbook of Negotiation and Culture, edited by M. J. Gelfand and J. M. Brett, 219–237. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  Kressel, K. 2000. “Mediation.” In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution, edited by M. Deutsch and P. T. Coleman, 522–545. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  Kressel, K., and H. Gadlin. 2009. “Mediating among Scientists: A Mental Model of Expert Practice.” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 2:308–343.

  Kressel, K., and D. G. Pruitt. 1989. “Conclusion: A Research Perspective on the Mediation of Social Conflict.” In Mediation Research, edited by K. Kressel, D. G. Pruitt, and Associates, 394–435. San Francisco: Jossey-B
ass.

  Kugler, K. G., and F. C. Brodbeck. 2011. “How Organizational Communication at the Top Relates to Conflict Management and Organizational Justice Perceptions on the Work Floor.” WOP working paper no. 2011/1. Retrieved from www.psy.lmu.de/wirtschaftspsychologie/forschung/working_papers/index.html

  Kugler, K. G., P. T. Coleman, and A. M. Fuchs. 2011. “Conflict, Complexity, and Openness: Constructive vs. Destructive Discussions on Intractable Issues.” WOP working paper no. 2011/3. Retrieved from www.psy.lmu.de/wirtschaftspsychologie/forschung/working_papers/index.html

  Kurt, L., Kugler, K. G., Coleman, P. T., and Liebovitch, L. S. In press. “Behavioral and Emotional Dynamics of Two People Struggling to Reach Consensus about a Topic on Which They Disagree.” Plos One.

  Lax, D. A., and J. K. Sebenius. 1986. The Manager as Negotiator. New York: Free Press.

  Lederach, J. P. 1997. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press.

  Lind, E. A., C. T. Kulik, M. Ambrose, and M. De Vera Park. 1993. “Individual and Corporate Dispute Resolution.” Administrative Science Quarterly 38:224–251.

  Major, B. 1994. “From Social Inequality to Personal Entitlement: The Role of Social Comparisons, Legitimacy Appraisals, and Group Membership.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by M. P. Zanna. San Diego: Academic Press.

  Mannix, E., L. Thompson, and M. Bazerman. 1989. “Negotiation in Small Groups.” Journal of Applied Psychology 74:508–517.