Conflict (process)
A conflict is a situation in which unacceptable differences in interests, expectations, values, and opinions occur in or between individuals or groups.
Further, more general and comprehensive personality tests are Leadership Derailers,[38] Social value orientation,[39][40] Hexaco-PI-R[41] and NEO-PI-R,[42] which also include a bit of conflict behaviour.
Doubts and uncertainties about one's own position are usually replaced with firm convictions (confirmation bias), without anything having changed in the real probabilities.
[1] In conflicts, destructive behaviours can also appear: violence, coercion, intimidation, blackmailing, deception und seduction.
[57][58] Five typical emotions have been identified in groups that contribute to escalation: superiority, injustice, vulnerability, mistrust, and helplessness.
[62] In an experiment, more than half of the participants opted for a choice with less reward if the process was perceived as fair in return.
[64][65] Out-group-directed emotions can be expressed both verbally and non-verbally, and according to the stereotype content model, are dictated by two dimensions: the perceived warmth (friendliness) and competence of the other group (skillfulness).
Depending on the perceived degree of warmth and competence, the stereotype content model predicts four basic emotions that could be directed toward the out-group (Forsyth, 2010).
[66] A number of factors including increased commitment to one's position, use of harder influence tactics, and formation of coalitions propel the escalation of the conflict.
[67] As conflicts escalate, group members' doubts and uncertainties are replaced with a firm commitment to their position.
During the conflict, opponents' inferences about each other's strengths, attitudes, values, and personal qualities tend to be largely distorted.
Fundamental attribution error occurs when one assumes that opponents' behavior was caused by personal (dispositional) rather than situational (environmental) factors.
People with competitive social value orientations (SVOs) are the most inaccurate in their perception of opponents' motivation.
Morton Deutsch and Robert Krauss (1960)[79] used trucking game experiment to demonstrate that capacity to threaten others intensifies conflict.
In conflict situations, opponents often follow the norm of rough reciprocity, i.e. they give too much (overmatching) or too little (undermatching) in return.
This is achieved through the satisfaction of all parties involved, which ideally results in constructively working together on the problem (collaboration, cooperation).
[90] In addition, a regulation of the conflict can occur through a decision by an authority,[91] e.g., by an arbitrator, a court, a parent, or a supervisor.
[49] Anger can be reduced by an apology, humor, a recess, common behavioral norms, greater distance (switch to online discussion), or by background information that the escalation of the other side was not intended.
[1] Afterwards, the problematic behavior can be addressed in a calm manner, followed by an acknowledgment of those substantive points of the escalating person that are correct.
In the case of avoiding behavior, more questions should be asked and more attention should be paid to the participation of these persons in the conflict resolution and to their immaterial interests (such as recognition and autonomy).
[93] Furthermore, I-messages can be alternated with active listening according to Thomas Gordon[94][95] or nonviolent communication according to Marshall B. Rosenberg[96] can be used to depersonalize a discussion.
The variables assertiveness and cooperativity are based on the results in the 1964 work Managerial Grid by Jane Srygley Mouton and Robert Rogers Blake.
[102][103] It extends the model to include compromise-seeking behavior and quantifies five typical conflict styles (competitive, collaborating, compromise seeking, avoiding and accommodating) in questionnaires, which give different values for the personal inclination to the five typical conflict styles.
Ideally, a consensus is worked on collaboratively (and preferably on a win-win solution) because this serves the interests of all parties involved.
Furthermore, a vote or a judicial judgment is often carried out as a competitive procedure, in which the interests of the larger group or the right-preserving side are served first.
Put simply, the mediator can be thought of as a disinterested guide directs the disputants through the process of developing a solution to a disagreement.
[29] As mediation depends on meeting together peacefully, it is more successful in conflicts with low levels of escalation where there is still a will to work on an agreement.
[107] The mediator can also offer assistance in refining solutions and making counter-offers between members, adjusting the time and location of meetings so that they are mutually satisfying for both parties.
[107] There are three major mediation approaches:[1] In practice, conflict resolution is often interwoven with daily activities, as in organizations, workplaces and institutions.
Staff and residents in a youth care setting, for instance, interweave everyday concerns (meals, lessons, breaks, meetings, or other mundane but concerted projects) with interpersonal disputes.
