Psychology of Conflict
Professor Richard C. Reuben
Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution
Pepperdine University School of Law
Summer Intensive 2015
July 1, 2015
Modulating Factors:
Can stabilize or escalate conflict
• Environmental conditions
• Idiosyncratic features of the parties
• The relationship between the parties
• The parties’ relationship with larger communities
Modulating Factors:
Environmental Conditions
• Noise
• Lights
• Physical exertion
• Drugs and alcohol
– Focus attention on most salient stimuli
– Reduces inhibitions
• Time pressure
Personality characteristics:
Tendencies that tend to escalate conflict
• Tendency toward competitiveness
• Tendency toward irritability
• Tendency toward impulsiveness
• Tendency to have easily threatened image
• Tendency toward personal code of retaliation
– eye for an eye
Personality characteristics:
Tendencies that tend to stabilize conflict
1.Tendency toward strong need for social approval
2.Tendency to feel guilty about aggression
3.Tendency to be more empathetic
4.Tendency to be more reflective
Modulating Factors:
Relationship Between the Parties
• Focus is on social bond, and degree conflict chafes at it
– GR: Stronger the bond, the greater the stability
• Strands of bond include:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Positive attitudes
Respect
Trust
Power relationship
Friendship
Kinship
Perceived Similarity
Common Group Membership
Ethnic, Cultural Identity
Power Reflection
1. Imagine a conflict in which you were involved in which
there was a power imbalance.
2. What were the characteristics of the high power and low
power positions?
3. What strategies were used?
4. What was the effect on the conflict? On the relationship?
A definition of power
Power is the ability to bring about a desired
outcome.
Types of Power
• Personal power
• degree to which one can satisfy own desires
• Relationship power
• degree to which one can favorably influence
someone else
• Environmental power
• degree to which one can favorably influence
environment
The Relational Theory of Power
• Power is a relational concept; it does not
reside in the person but rather in the
relationship of the person to the situation.
– ability to control outcomes is contingent upon
two sets of variables:
• the characteristics of the individual and
• the characteristics of the situation.
Sources of Individual Power
1.
Sources of Situational Power
• “Deep Structure”
– Role
– History
– Hierarchy
• Goal Interdependence
Why power is exercised
1.For dominance - to assert power over others
2.For autonomy - to establish independence from
others
3.For support -- to get support from others
(powerlessness/dependence)
4.For togetherness - to feel connected with others
("power with")
Tendencies, Strategies of
Those with High Power
• General Rule: Those with power tend to like power,
justify having it, and want to maintain power
– High levels of satisfaction with their situations
– Creates vested interest that tends to support status
quo
– Belief in superior competence, moral value
– Marginalization of Low Power Players
In conflict situations,
high power players tend to . . .
• Under-estimate or neglect those with less power
• Demonstrate ambivalent tolerance or seek to repress
conflict, depending upon the credence given to the low
power party’s interests and concerns
• Use heavy-handed tactics
In conflict situations,
low power players tend to . . .
• Be dependent, and have short time perspectives with
respect to conflict
• Project experiences of powerlessness and dependency
onto those with even less power or even self-destruction
Strategies for low power players
• Increase own resources
– organization
– cohesion
– motivation
• Decrease resources of the powerful
– Acts of civil disobedience
– Militancy
– Exploiting power imbalance against HPP
• Appeal to better side of the powerful
A Definition of Trust
Breach of Trust
Some basic research findings on
trust
• General Rule: Trust is hard to build, easy to destroy,
and even harder to rebuild
• Trust is evolutionary: It develops incrementally over
the course of different contacts, contexts, and
experiences.
• Trust is variegated: We tend to trust Other for some
things, but not for others.
• Trust is reinforcing: Whether positive or negative,
trust (and distrust) tends to be reinforcing because of
such psychological phenomena as attribution, selective
perception.
• Trust is differentiated: There are different kinds of
trust, as well as different levels of trust.
Major Categories of Trust
• Calculus-Based Trust (CBT)
• Knowledge-based trust (KBT)
• Identification-based trust (IBT)
Preliminary observations on
categories
• The categories are descriptive, not normative
• Within and among categories, trust (and
distrust) develops over repeated interactions
• The categories are often linked and sequential
as stages
Calculus-Based Trust (CBT)
• Where expectations of Other are based on
expected gain or loss from taking a given
course of action.
– Example: “Arm's length” business relationship
– Enhanced if people behave consistently with
expectations of meeting deadlines and
performing subordinate tasks as expected
– Can lead to knowledge-based trust (distrust)
Knowledge-Based Trust (KBT)
• We trust, or expect, that the other person
will act in a certain way, based on what
we have learned about that person.
– Similar to CBT, but extends it in that
predictability based on our understanding of
other person's actions, thoughts, and intents,
not just what we might infer from the
situation
Identification-Based Trust (IBT)
• Where expectations of Other's conduct is
based on identification with Other's
values, beliefs, goals, etc.
– Examples: familial relationships; close
business relationships; professional
associations
– IBT enhanced the more that parties spend
time sharing personal values, goals,
perceptions, etc.
The decline of trust
• Principle of Defection: Trust is violated by Other’s
departure, or defection, from our expectations
– applies to CBT, KBT, and IBT
Consequences of breach of trust
• Creates dissonance along three dimensions
– Cognitive Dimension: We think about situation:
• importance, implications for Party and Other
• where responsibility for it lies (attribution)
– Emotional dimension: Emotions tend to run
rampant
• anger, frustration, shame, other emotions.
• rumination cycles over and over again
– Behavioral dimension: Relationships change
• more awkward and distant, depending upon level of trust
Responses to violations of trust
• CBT: Gamesmanship
– "Win some, lose some"
• KBT: Hurtful bewilderment
– "I don't know you any more."
• IBT: Deep sense of moral violation
– "I could never trust you any more."
Managing CBT up front
• Agree explicitly on expectations
• Establish procedures to monitor progress
• Cultivate alternative ways of meeting needs
• Increase Other's awareness of costs of defecting
(relationship, reputation, economic, etc.)
Managing IBT up front
• Same as CBT (managing expectations)
– PLUS
• Acknowledge areas of distrust
Repairing trust on the back end
• First principle: First CBT, then IBT
– Acknowledge behavior seen as breach of trust
– Full explanation of the behavior
• Second principle: Time, effort, willingness
– Renegotiation of expectations
– New procedures to monitor process
– Development of alternatives
Community as a moderating factor
• Provide outsiders
– Can provide stability or escalate
• Provide norms that limit conflict.
• Provide conflict-limiting institutions
– Parents or parental figures
– Courts
– ADR providers
• Culture
Community Structure:
Cross-cutting vs. Overlapping Bonds
• Overlapping Bonds: community structure in which bonds
between subgroups are weak or non-existent
– highly unstable
– community likely to polarize when conflict arises
• Cross-Cutting Bonds: community structure in which there
are lots of connections between subgroups
– Highly stable
• Study: ethnically integrated organizations less likely to have heavy
•
•
Hindu-Muslim rioting
Mild conflict actually promotes stability
Why?
– Community members exercise restraint individually
– Members of cross-cutting groups tend to exercise control over people who
are not members of cross-cutting group
– Members of cross-cutting groups tend to act as mediators