The field of mediation is fractured.

Although the research on mediation is considerable and proliferating, our field still lacks a basic unifying framework which provides theoretical coherence and integrates our understanding of various research findings. Today, the research presents a piecemeal understanding of what constitutes “effective mediation” and how to achieve it. To address this gap, the ICCCR Lab launched a study aimed at identifying the most basic aspects of mediations that determine fundamental differences in mediator strategies and the constructiveness of mediation. We surveyed 149 experienced mediators who were asked to describe and reflect on their most recent mediation case, and then to answer a series of questions.

The findings reveal that there are four basic aspects of mediations, each distinguishing basic differences in the conflict (high-intensity to low-intensity), disputant relationships (positive to negative goal-interdependence), context (unconstrained to highly constrained), and process (overt-explicit to covert-implicit). These four aspects have direct effects on: the achievement of agreements, the constructiveness-destructiveness of disputants’ communications, perceptions of procedural justice in the mediation, relational-nondirective to settlement-directive mediator strategy, and degree of necessary mediator preparation. These four dimensions combine to create 16 qualitatively different types of mediation situations, where each type affords a distinct mediator orientation and strategy. Ultimately, the new model suggests the importance of the mediator competency of adaptivity; the capacity to read relevant changes in situations and employ strategies that fit with specific situation-types.

By weaving together the four most fundamental parameters the new situated model of mediation helps to integrate many disparate findings from decades of prior research on mediation, and therefore enhance our understanding of how a variety of different aspects of mediation ultimately affect conflict. The value of the present model, then, is less the identification of new factors and variables, and more in how the model shows how a minimal number of these factors—those deemed the most essential – is sufficient to capture the complexity of conflict mediation in a wide range of contexts.

Coleman, P. T., Kugler, K., Gozzi, C., Mazzaro, K., El Zokm, N & Kressel, K. (Working paper). Putting the peaces together: Introducing a situated model of mediation.

At a recent workshop at Leiden University on Obstacles and Catalysts for Peaceful Behavior, Nurit Shnabel presented exciting research distinguishing the needs of victims and perpetrators in interpersonal and intergroup conflicts. According to Shnabel and colleagues’ Needs-Based Model of Reconciliation, victims of conflict experience a psychological loss of status and honor, thus undermining their identities as powerful actors. Perpetrators, on the other hand, experience a psychological loss of social acceptance, thus threatening their identities as moral actors. Accordingly, victims and perpetrators are differentially motivated to restore these respective identities, and interactions that do so will increase their willingness to reconcile.

In several experiments, Shnabel & Nadler¹ provided support for this model using a series of social exchange tasks. In one study, participants were randomly assigned to either a victim or perpetrator dyad role in which they judged (perpetrator) or were judged (victim) harshly on a creative writing task. In line with predictions, being a victim primarily threatened one’s sense of power, resulting in a greater need to restore power, and being a perpetrator primarily threatened one’s public moral image, resulting in a greater need for social acceptance. In a follow-up study, researchers demonstrated that satisfying these different needs translated into a willingness to reconcile. Using the same creativity task paradigm, participants later received a message allegedly sent from their partner, which emphasized either empowerment or acceptance. As predicted, a message of empowerment was associated with an increased willingness to reconcile only among victims, whereas a message of acceptance was associated with an increased willingness to reconcile only among perpetrators. They subsequently tested their model in the context of real-life intergroup conflicts in two experiments (the Kefar Kasem killings in Study 1, and the Holocaust in Study 2) and found further support for these patterns among victimized groups (Arabs in Study 1; Jews in Study 2) and perpetrating groups (Jews in Study 1; Germans in Study 2).²

Overall, this work highlights the emotional considerations of reconciliation (as opposed to the more traditional emphasis on instrumental concerns) by delineating the different psychological needs of victims and perpetrators in conflict. Together these studies highlight that effective intervention strategies to promote interpersonal and intergroup reconciliation must take into account both dimensions. 

¹Shnabel, N. & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 94: 116-132.

²Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., Ullrich, J., Dovidio, J.F., & Carmi, D. (2009). Promoting reconciliation through the satisfaction of the emotional needs of victimized and perpetrating group members: The needs-based model of reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35: 1021-1030.

Last February, Human Rights Watch presented the 2013 edition of its World Report. The theme this year: Challenges for Rights After the Arab Spring, How to Build Rights-Respecting Democracies After the Dictator Falls. Two years after the rise of movements that confronted authoritarian regimes and in the context of nascent democracies that are struggling to stabilize, crises in the Persian Gulf, resilient monarchies, and the exacerbation of violence in Syria, this report acknowledges that after the euphoria that followed the fall of dictators, building rights-respecting democracies is a much more complex process. But what are the factors that can make of a revolution an opportunity for democratization?

Over the last two decades, Professors Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder have studied conflict, democratic transitions, and institutional strength. Across their research, the particularly turbulent nature of democratic transitions and the high probabilities of relapsing to conflict in its early stages is an overarching idea. Looking at the conditions under which democratization can lead to conflict and instability, they found that the risk of conflict relapse is higher in transitions from autocratic to “partly” democratic regimes. This is even more so when governmental institutions and political participation venues are weak. In other words: in incomplete democratic transitions where the central government has limited control, conflict and wars are more likely to occur.

From a complex systems perspective, Alexander Gard-Murray and Yaneer Bar-Yam also elaborated on the question of whether it should be expected that repressive autocracies are replaced by democracies after radical governmental changes. Gard-Murray and Bar-Yam point out that due to the participation of larger numbers of people in decision-making, democratic regimes are inherently more systematically complex than autocracies. By disrupting a government and its web of relationshipd within society, revolutions limit the rapid emergence of complexity, making it easier for more autocratic –and less complex- forms of government to arise in the wake of unrest. Using data on the outcomes of unrest and governmental change from 1945 to 2000, they found that violent revolutions were more likely to produce autocracies, that mass protests and turmoil were equally likely to produce democracy as autocracy, and that more orderly transitions had more chances to transition to democracy. Simply put: the greater the disruption of preexisting government structures (in this case in terms of violence and institutional weakness), the higher the possibility of relapse to autocracy.  

The idea that highly complex systems, such as democracies, do not arise spontaneously and that “partly” democratic regimes are more likely to fail, talks to the fact that actions towards governmental change are not inherently infallible and must be supported by sturdy and complex institutions that allow for effective political action. In contexts of radical change such as in the Arab Spring, although it may be tempting to claim the triumph of democracy over authoritarianism, the difference between success and relapse may depend on how well government resources and external assistance are managed to support the transitions. Future research would be instrumental in shedding more light on the processes that may strengthen democratic institutions and increase their structural and functional complexity after a (potentially) democratic revolution.

Gard-Murray, A. S., & Bar-Yam, Y. (2012). Complexity and the Limits of Revolution: What Will Happen to the Arab Spring?. arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.3041.

Human Rights Watch. (2013). World Report 2013. https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/wr2013_web.pdf

Mansfield, E. D., & Snyder, J. (2012). Democratization and the Arab Spring. International Interactions, 38(5), 722-733.

A great deal of our most difficult conflicts appear to be identity-based: Israeli vs. Palestinian, Democrat vs. Republican, Christian vs. Muslim, and so on. Identities are pitted against one another in a win-lose fashion. The intransigent nature of so-called identity conflict has understandably lead some to conclude that we must transcend our concerns over identity in order to resolve the deep conflicts that plague our societies. Yet research on identity and conflict resolution suggests that it’s premature to toss the baby out with the dirty bathwater.

In an earlier post I addressed the importance of complexifying identity in order to foster tolerance for others. However, what about the relationship between identity and pro-social behavior? Addressing this question, Mark Levine conducted a creative experiment examining the association between identities and helping behaviors in emergency situations.

Levine and his team had British Football fans recruited to be in the study. Specifically Manchester United (MU) fans (all male) were selected from a larger sample of football fans. Each was given a questionnaire regarding how much and in what ways they liked their favorite team. They were also required, in each question, to write down the name of their favorite team.

After filling out the questions and having their identity as MU fans activated, the subjects were asked to go to another building on campus to do the 2^nd part of the study.

On the way a student (a confederate), would run by and pretend to fall and hurt his ankle. Three research assistants were hiding in the bushes (like Good graduate students!) and observing what was happening. The runner was wearing either Manchester United (in-group member), plain white (no visible social category) or Liverpool T-shirt (rival out-group member) jerseys.  What were the helping rates?

Manchester United T-Shirt: 12/13

Plain T-Shirts: 4/12

Liverpool: 3/10

Incredibly, after the subject’s identity as MU fan was primed, he/she was far more likely to help out a person within their own in-group than otherwise. This is a depressing finding.  However, it should be pointed out that although the study clearly demonstrated effects of in-group favoritism, social category information did not produce out-group derogation.  In other words, subjects were not less likely to help those wearing the Liverpool shirt as those with a plain white top (an outcome that is somewhat surprising given the intense rivalry between MU and Liverpool fans).

Next, Levine conducted a second study with the same methods, but subjects were primed to activate their identity as football fans, not specifically MU fans. What were the helping rates?

Manchester U T-shirts: 8/10

Plain: 2/9

Liverpool: 7/10

The findings from the study suggest that helping behavior is more likely when we perceive the recipient belonging to our in-group. This is all the more so when a certain identity is activated and made salient.  Fortunately, as the second study shows, most people have enough layers of complexity to their own identity that their in-group can be enlarged to include a greater number of people.

As conflict resolution practitioners we need to recognize that different levels of identity can be activated in different circumstances. For identity, like much of life, is fluid and dynamic.

Levine M., Prosser A., Evans D, Stephen D & Reicher S, (2005). “Identity and Emergency Intervention: How Social Group Membership and Inclusiveness of Group Boundaries Shape Helping Behavior”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 31 no. 4 443-453.

The study of conflict within teams is a hot topic among organization scholars and practitioners. Traditionally, the major distinction in team conflict has been between conflicts about members’ relationships, or those concerning the task of the team. Relationship conflicts are disagreements between members originating in differences in personality or mismatched values and norms for behavior. Task conflicts are specific to the purpose of the team including what is to be done, how it is done, and when it is complete. More recently, a third type of conflict within teams has been identified: process conflict, or conflict over how to proceed with a task. This includes the division of labor and decisions about responsibility, as well as member ownership over different aspects of the task. While past research suggests that all conflict has a negative impact on the performance of a team, a recent meta-analysis of research suggests otherwise.

This research combined data from 116 studies published between 1990 and 2010, in order to capture overall trends in group conflict research. The findings paint a more complex picture of the impact of these types of conflict:

-          Overall, conflict tends to have a stronger impact on team satisfaction and cohesion than on performance.

-          Process and relationship conflicts are more strongly related to decreases in team member satisfaction than task conflicts.

-          Cohesion suffers in the presence of relationship, but not task conflicts.

-          Both process and relationship conflicts are associated with decreased team performance. In fact, when there is both increased relationship and process conflict, performance is further diminished.

-          Task conflicts can actually enhance performance. Only when relationship conflicts are high do task conflicts have a negative impact on cohesion and member satisfaction.

-          Management teams, as compared to lower-level teams, are better able to prevent task conflicts from escalating into relationship conflicts.

This research builds on past assumptions about conflict that leaders and consultants should heed: effective teams are not devoid of conflict, but make use of conflict in constructive ways. Conflicts over the task at hand can result in innovations, with members sharing and debating competing ideas. When conflicts get personal, destructive dynamics develop. Process conflicts form when the approach to completing a task leaves out certain team members, or fails to recognize individual team member needs to contribute in ways that match their skills, abilities and ambitions. When this happens, relationships suffer, and team members struggle to maintain cohesion and work effectively together – further escalating the destructive dynamic.

de Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360-390.

In the most recent issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Bernhard Leidner and colleagues posit a relation between perceptions of sentience (defined as the capacity to experience emotions) in other disputants and the forms of justice that parties seek in intergroup conflicts. In particular, they contend that the degree of sentience attributed to the opposing party should positively predict a desire for restorative justice and negatively predict a desire for retributive justice. Restorative or retributive notions of justice should then lead parties to prefer diplomatic or aggressive conflict resolution strategies, respectively.

Researchers tested these predictions through two separate field studies in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the first study, a random sample of Palestinian adults was asked to what extent having compassion for someone else’s suffering was a typical trait of the average Jewish Israeli. They were then asked questions regarding support for retributive (e.g. do you agree that the only way to restore justice is to punish the Israelis?) versus restorative (e.g. do you agree that to restore justice, Israelis and Palestinians need to agree on rules of a peaceful world?) notions of justice. As predicted, higher perceived sentience positively predicted restorative justice and negatively predicted retributive justice. Furthermore, this differentially predicted adherence to diplomatic (i.e. support for peace deals – in the case of restorative justice) versus aggressive (i.e. support for bombing attacks and campaigns – in the case of retributive justice) conflict resolution strategies. Overall, the pattern of results suggests that perceived sentience influences different conflict resolution strategies, and that these effects are mediated by participants’ notions of justice.

In the second study, Leidner et al. partially replicated these findings in a sample of Jewish Israeli adults (regarding perceived Palestinian sentience). Although there were important differences between the two studies, authors point to dehumanization of the opponent as one of the universal themes of protracted conflicts such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and reveal that disparate notions of justice might underlie ensuing resolution attempts. Another common element of protracted conflicts is the deep sense of victimhood experienced by both sides of the conflict. Authors contend that when both sides identify themselves as victims in intergroup conflict, retributive justice risks being disruptive to the peacemaking process, while restorative justice becomes increasingly difficult to achieve. Finding ways to circumvent this pattern by increasing perceived sentience among opponents could foster efforts towards restorative justice and potential reconciliation. The topic begs more systematic research, such as these studies, to uncover the precise mechanisms by which it can be effective.

Leidner, B., Castano, E., & Ginges, J. (2013). Dehumanization, retributive and restorative justice, and aggressive versus diplomatic intergroup conflict resolution strategies. PSPB, 39(2): 181-192.

Shortly after the 9-11 attack, we gathered at the World Trade Center site in New York and the Pentagon to mourn the nearly 3,000 victims of the 2001 terror attacks.  We, united as one, praised our heroes, the firefighters and policeman who sacrificed their lives to save those who were in danger and we asked for justice to be done – to capture and condemn Osama bin Ladin.  This tragedy also triggered a wave of anti-Islamic feelings or “islamophobia” in the United States.  Mosques were burned to the ground and the number of hate groups increased.

Our reaction to this tragic event can be explained by terror management theory (TMT), which claims that many human behaviors are motivated by an unconscious fear of mortality.   According to  TMT researchers, our beliefs about reality or our cultural worldviews provide a buffer against the anxiety that results from living in a largely uncontrollable, perilous universe, where the only certainty is death.  We need to believe that our cultural beliefs and values matter, are good, and will continue when we die. Hence, we tend to like others with similar beliefs because they provide consensual validation for our own worldview, while others with dissimilar beliefs are disliked because they threaten ours.  Therefore, reminding people of what they are most afraid of – their own death –  increases their tendency to respond positively to those who are similar and negatively to those who are different.

Greenberg and colleagues at University of Greenberg conducted many studies to test if reminding people of their mortality increases attraction to those who consensually validate their beliefs and values and decreases attraction to those who threaten them.   They have found, for example, that when mortality was made salient, Christian participants made more positive evaluations of fellow Christians and made more negative evaluations of Jews; they also ascribed more negative stereotypical traits to the Jewish person when they were reminded of their own mortality.

As we can see from the results of the studies and the aftermath of 9/11, mortality salience appears to increase in-group favoritism, and rejection and stereotyping of those who are different.   This suggests that whenever events heighten mortality salience, such as intra or intergroup violence, in-group solidarity, out-group derogation, nationalism, religious extremism, prejudice, discrimination and intolerance are likely to escalate.

Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., Rosenblatt, A., Veeder, M., Kirkland, S., & Lyon, D. (1990). Evidence for terror management theory II: The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural wordview.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 308-318.

At the recent Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP) conference in New Orleans, a symposium titled Life is an Adventure in Forgiveness: Surprising Lessons in Giving and Gaining Forgiveness offered some unexpected insights. Findings ranged from the risks associated with being too forgiving of interpersonal transgressions to the effectiveness of prayer for forgiveness in close relationships. One particular line of research attempted to unravel the common perception that intergroup apologies are successful at promoting intergroup forgiveness.

According to Michael Wohl and colleagues, most evidence in favor of this perception comes from research in the interpersonal domain, which typically highlights the effectiveness of apologies for individuals in conflict. However, authors cite myriad examples of intergroup apologies that have failed, noting their public (and often abstract) rather than private (and personal) nature. Among the issues they raise are: Can culpability be assigned to an entire group? Are apologies used in place of more meaningful reparations? Do group apologies recognize the psychological needs of individual victims? Are the moral and historical contexts of apologies mutually experienced by both groups?

Wohl et al. emphasize that interpersonal conflicts are one-to-one encounters whereas intergroup conflicts are many-to-many, and developed a framework to address this added complexity. According to their “staircase model,” acceptance of collective guilt by the perpetrator group is the first step. The second step, setting the records of history, involves formal discussions between the perpetrator and victimized groups to reach a consensus about what happened. Third, both parties discuss the most appropriate means of repair. Only once these preconditions have been met should the fourth step, offering an intergroup apology, take place. Fifth, post-apology engagement acts to rebuild relationships and develop a dynamic of security and trust. Initial support for this framework was presented at SPSP using data on Canada’s apology for the head tax on Chinese immigrants, but further empirical evidence is warranted.

Each step of the staircase model contains its own complexities, but the prevailing principle is straightforward: a proper foundation must be laid in order for an intergroup apology to potentially be successful. Though this may seem obvious, it is often overlooked when we attempt to translate findings on interpersonal forgiveness to implications for intergroup reconciliation. They are different animals, and the efficacy of apologies in each context should be treated as such too.

Wohl, M.J.A., Hornsey, M.J., Matheson, K., Branscombe, N., & Anisman, H. Collective guilt assignment moderates expected outcomes of an intergroup apology and willingness to forgive: A test of the staircase model of intergroup apology effectiveness. Presentation for the 14^th annual meeting of SPSP, Jan 17-19 (2013) New Orleans, LA.

Wohl, M.J.A., Hornsey, M.J., & Philpot, C.R. (2011). A critical review of official public apologies: Aims, pitfalls, and a staircase model of effectiveness. Social Issues and Policy Review, 5, 70-100.

In September 2012, the United Nations published a general Guidance for mediators working at the international, national and local levels, which identifies eight fundamentals of an effective mediation process: preparedness, consent, impartiality, inclusivity, national ownership, international law and normative frameworks, coherence, coordination and complementarity among mediation efforts, and the development of quality peace agreements.  Of all these, it could be said that impartiality or unbiased mediation, being highlighted in research and models of practice as highly desirable, is one of the most debated subjects across the mediation literature.

According to the UN Guidance, if a mediation process is perceived to be biased, the risks of undermining the process are likely to be higher. Recent empirical evidence on the nature of the relationship between biased mediation and the quality of agreements sheds some light on this issue.

In a recent study, Isak Svensson found that, contrary to common belief, biased mediations can actually lead to institutional agreements that are more meticulous and hence more conducive to democratic and sustainable arrangements than unbiased mediations. The author found that because of their tendency to prioritize the ending of a conflict over other considerations, neutral or impartial mediators usually favor arrangements that expedite the secession of hostilities at the expense quality and durability.

Covering 124 peace agreements and 320 mediations or voluntary third party interventions from 1989 to 2004, Svensson’s study looked at how mediators who favor a party –either a government or a rebel group- affected the level of power sharing, security guarantees, stipulations for amnesty, and provisions for repatriation in peace agreements.  Results showed that in contrast with neutral mediators:

-          Biased mediators had a significant effect on political power-sharing provisions. In particular, mediators who favored rebels over governments increased the likelihood of provisions that guaranteed new government positions or quotas of political power from 3 to 9 percent.

-          Government-biased mediators increased the probabilities of reaching territorial pacts from 4 to 7 percent. In other words, having a mediator on their side, governments are more open to agree to a territorial pact.

-          Rebel-biased mediation increased the likelihood of stipulations of guarantees that strengthened the durability of agreements from 11 to 24 percent, which can be attributed to the fact that additional provisions and guarantees are more protective of less powerful parties who are not part of the government and count with the favor of the mediator.

-          Biased mediation did not have a significant effect on the probability of reaching pacts of a military nature.

Although more research on the relationship between bias, mediation processes, and the nature of agreements still needs to be conducted, this study shows how negotiation processes with neutral mediators do not necessarily lead to better quality peace agreements.  And that, in fact, mediation biases can have a positive effect on the likelihood of sustainable institutional arrangements and peace.  As mentioned in the Guidance, although each mediation situation generally requires a different approach, careful attention to its fundamental dimensions can have a huge impact on its outcomes.

Svensson, I. (2009). Who brings which peace? Neutral versus biased mediation and institutional peace arrangements in civil wars. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53, 446-469.

United Nations. (2012). Guidance for effective mediation. In United Nations, Report of the Secretary General on Strengthening the role of mediation in the peaceful settlement of disputes, conflict prevention and resolution (A/66/811).New York: UN DPA.

A recently published study provides evidence of a phenomena that all organization development practitioners, or anyone working in an organization setting, will immediately recognize:  1) the social environment of the organization has a strong influence on employee relations – especially how often and to what extremes conflicts manifest and persist, and 2) the leader of the organization is the likely culprit. This is no secret in the world of organizational development, but surprisingly, there is a little data to support this commonly observed phenomena.

A new study surveyed employees and branch managers across 131 bank branches to establish empirical support for these observations. They specifically assess three conflict styles that apply to both individual branch leadership behaviors, as well as the branch conflict culture as rated by the employees. First, there is the dominating style, characterized by a norm for active disagreement, and by conflicts being resolved through the process of win/lose public confrontations. Just the opposite of this, the avoidant style sees conflicts as dangerous, with confrontations often avoided for the sake of maintaining group harmony. Finally, we have the collaborative conflict style, which embraces constructive conflict management – conflicts are opportunities to build cooperation, bolster team relations, and to improve the outcome of decisions.

The authors of this study found that indeed these distinct conflict cultures do exist, and they are related to the performance of the organization. Dominating cultures have low group cohesion, and poor customer service, while avoidant conflict cultures suffer from lower creativity. Collaborative conflict cultures, on the other hand, get things done. In these environments employees have better group cohesion with a stronger sense that the group can be productive, and these employees experience less burnout.

Most importantly, this study ties a direct link between the leader’s conflict behaviors and the conflict culture of the organization. Leaders, who approach conflict collaboratively, lead cultures that embrace this as well, while avoidant leaders tend to lead more conflict avoidant cultures. The story of the dominating style is a little different: while these leaders tend to reside in less conflict avoidant cultures, there is no evidence that the culture they lead will be a dominating one. This makes sense if we consider that a dominating leader may not leave much room in the culture for others to be dominating as well.

Conflict is part of all organization systems, and in fact, these systems thrive on conflicts that enhance the organization by integrating multiple perspectives. The task of those working in organization development it is not to help leaders minimize conflict, but to maximize the probability that a constructive and collaborative conflict culture will emerge – starting with the leader.

Gelfand, M. J., Leslie, L. M., Keller, K., & de Dreu, C. (2012). Conflict cultures in organizations: How leaders shape conflict cultures and their organizational-level consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1131-1147.

Today, scholars like Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker claim that we actually live in the most peaceful period in human history. If so, how can we explain this?

In a recent paper, Gat (2012) examines different explanations for the data that show violence and mortality rates related to conflicts actually dropped steeply over the last few centuries. Like others, he argues that the three longest periods of peace in modern times all occurred after 1815. However, Gat rejects the idea that the main reason is that wars became more costly and destructive during the past two centuries. As an alternative, he suggests that there is less war in the world because peace has become more profitable. Developments in industrialization, economic growth and other types of social and governmental interdependence between nations create a situation in which people have much more to gain during peace than during war. In the past, being wealthy was often viewed at the expense of the other party. Today wealth is based less on a zero-sum game; both parties can become wealthier. Additionally, leaders nowadays understand that it is no longer necessary to possess a territory in order benefit from it. Economic and commercial access is today less associated with geographic borders.

What does it mean when looking ahead into the future? Hopefully, a better understanding of the costs of violence and benefits of peace will motivate more peace in the world.

As Gat concludes: “In pursuit of their aims people may employ any of the following strategies: cooperation, peaceful competition, and violent conflict”. Using conflict is just one route and not necessarily the one that maximizes one nation’s political, social and economic gains. He challenges the assumption that war is inevitable and that humans are “wired” to fight each other. Peace simply makes good sense.

Gat, A. (2012). Is war declining – and why? Journal of Peace Research, doi:10.1177/0022343312461023.

Since 1961, Amnesty International has deployed more than 3,300 missions to identify human rights violations, produced more than 17,000 reports and public documents, and distributed around 20,500 Urgent Actions through a network of affiliates who send letters, e-mails, and faxes to government officials worldwide. Like Amnesty International, many other international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) and human rights organizations (HROs) advocate and mobilize resources to support initiatives that promote respect for human rights. They denounce violations, organize protests, and expose governments and any other accomplices while seeking support from above and below. But is it possible to assess their impact?

In a recent article, Amanda Murdie and David Davis found that the ‘shaming’ activities of INGOs and HROs, or actions in which states are publicly criticized for human rights abuses, can have an impact on many countries’ human rights practices. To better assess the nature of these campaigns and actions, they looked at all Reuters Global News Service reports related to HRO campaigns against government violations and their influence on human rights performance changes. These shaming activities included more than 400 HROs in 130 countries from 1992 to 2004.

Although it was found that shaming alone does not have a direct positive effect on human rights practices, when HROs have a strong local presence and partner with third-party states and other relevant actors and organizations, their campaigns do become instrumental in improving human rights conditions. Furthermore, researchers found that transnational advocacy efforts in the field of human rights not only impact policies but can also be applied across countries regardless of differences in their economies and political regimes. In other words, beyond economic or political vulnerabilities, shaming can be successful when third parties give their support and/or when there is a strong domestic base for the cause.

These findings not only highlight the sometimes neglected role of HRO advocacy, but also the importance of combining the commitment to human rights with cooperative strategies. In the words of Morton Deutsch, they make a case for the support of the idea of fostering a global community in which we “sink or swim together”.

Deutsch, Morton (2011). A Utopian Proposal for Changing the World. In Coleman, Peter T. (Ed.), The Intellectual Legacy of Morton Deutsch (pp.297-299). New York: Springer.

Murdie, A.M., & Davis D.R. (2012). Shaming and Blaming: Using Events Data to Assess the Impact of Human Rights INGOs. International Studies Quarterly, 56, 1-16.

When reconciling after a conflict, which is more important: responding quickly or responding correctly and thoroughly? A new study on motivation addresses this question.

Regulatory Mode Theory (RMT)1 distinguishes between two aspects of how we monitor and assess our own behavior: locomotion and assessment. Locomotion is the motivational component concerned with initiating and maintaining movement, whereas assessment is the motivational component concerned with making critical comparisons and evaluations. RMT suggests that locomotion and assessment function independently of one another. As such, people can differ both chronically and momentarily on their relative emphasis on one mode over the other. Further, this emphasis pertains not just to the self-regulatory strategies of individuals, but of groups as well. A recent study by Antonio Pierro and colleagues2 explores RMT as a group-level phenomenon, results of which have implications for how we navigate and resolve conflicts.

Researchers conducted a study to address the complementarity hypothesis, which posits that locomotion individuals and assessment individuals may be necessary for effective goal pursuit in groups. They recruited nearly 300 employees from various work teams and obtained measures of each individual’s chronic regulatory mode as well as supervisor ratings of work performance. Results demonstrated that employees who had a complementary regulatory mode orientation (i.e. individuals who were high on locomotion working in teams with other members who were high on assessment and individuals who were high on assessment working in teams with other members who were high on locomotion) were rated as the best performers. This work substantiates previous findings revealing that mixed-orientation teams performed better than more homogenous teams3 by focusing on individual performance within that group context.

Such findings have far-reaching implications for conflict resolution research. If both locomotion and assessment are necessary for effective goal-pursuit in individuals and teams, might they be central to the process of reconciling conflicts of interest? Often this process is one involving tradeoffs between doing it fast (a locomotion concern) and doing it right (an assessment concern). Do heterogeneous groups, comprising individuals of both orientations, have more optimal strategies of conflict resolution? Based on this work, it appears as if within-group differences in motivation would enhance effective conflict resolution; but might between-group differences deter it? In other words, if a high-locomoting group comes into conflict with a high-assessing group, do these differences in strategies preclude the effective resolution of conflict? These represent just several of the myriad questions one can ask when extending research on RMT to the domain of conflict resolution, answers to which are important in understanding both individual- and group-level reconciliation processes.

1 Higgins, E. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Pierro, A. (2003). Regulatory mode: Locomotion and assessment as distinct orientations. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 293-344). New York, NY: Academic Press.

2 Pierro, A., Presaghi, F., Higgins, E. T., Klein, K. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2012). Frogs and ponds: A multilevel analysis of the regulatory mode complementarity hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2): 269-279.

3 Mauro, R., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., Higgins, E. T., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2009). The perfect mix: Regulatory complementarity and the speed-accuracy balance in group performance. Psychological Science, 20: 681-685.

“In the forum of the entire group I was forced to tell her that I couldn’t fulfill the task since the allotted time wasn’t reasonable. She claimed that it was a simple task . . . I felt that she was cornering me and that in any case I wouldn’t come out of this conversation looking good . . . My sense was that it was her word against mine . . . I felt small and rather helpless. This situation made me feel ashamed because I felt that my credibility was being called into question . . . I responded angrily, I tried to explain why, given the existing pressure, I wouldn’t be able to keep up with the schedule anyway.”  (p.1125)

Conflicts can elicit strong emotional responses.  Among them are guilt and shame, which typically arise in interpersonal contexts following wrongdoing and can cause great distress and jeopardize relationships.

Behrendt and Ben-Ari (2012) examined how guilt and shame are related to different styles of coping with conflict.  They found that experiences of guilt in conflicts led to the use of more cooperative conflict styles, such as integration, where parties integrate their own needs with the needs of the other.  In addition, people who felt guilt actually showed more concern for the other than themselves, more empathy towards the other person’s situation, a higher degree of motivation to better understand the other side, and demonstrated more personal responsibility than people who experienced shame.

In contrast, experiences of shame in conflict were related to the use of competitive coping styles, where the disputant’s primary concern was defeating the other party.  Also, people who felt shame showed more concern for themselves than others, expressed a stronger sense of helplessness, threat and low self-worth, and displayed less personal responsibility.

These findings shed light on the potentially positive social implications of guilt, which is typically viewed as a negative emotion, as well as the social consequences of shame.  Based on these results, professionals in conflict resolution and mediation can help parties who are feeling a sense of guilt by sharing the positive implications of guilt and the cooperating coping styles associated with it.  They can also keep in mind that shame is not only destructive to the person who is experiencing it (i.e. strong sense of helplessness and low self-worth) but is also associated with the use of competitive coping styles, which can deepen interpersonal conflicts and lead to deteriorated relationships.

Behrendt, H. & Ben-Ari, R. (2012). The positive side of negative emotion: the role of guilt and shame in coping with interpersonal conflict.  Journal of Conflict Resolution, 56, 1116-1138.

In the United States, we continually struggle with how to address inequality. Competing beliefs can usually be broken down into tensions between philosophies of equality, equity, and need. Conversations around equality center on making sure policies and procedures do not exclude certain members of the system, while those around equity center on making sure one receives what they have earned and thus deserve (i.e. merit). Addressing inequality based on need means providing resources to those members of the system who have less in order to minimize their disadvantage. In the U.S., framing justice in terms of equality and equity is better received than framing these issues in terms of need because the latter targets certain groups while the former applies to everyone.

Dr. Ashleigh Rosette, associate professor at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, has recently conducted research on advantageous inequity – when an individual is rewarded more in terms of their portion of effort relative to others in the system. This research builds upon equity theory, where people look to see that there is a match between their inputs relative to their outputs (i.e. pay, status, etc.). Rosette set up participants to receive an advantaged outcome over another individual. Then, some participants were told that the advantage they received was due to their individual abilities, while other participants were told that the other person’s disadvantage was due to their random misfortune. She found that when the reason for the advantage is attributed to merit (i.e. when the individual is told they earned the greater reward), they are significantly less likely to redistribute some of their reward to the disadvantaged other. However, when the inequity is portrayed as due to random chance (i.e. the other-focus condition), the advantaged individual is significantly more likely to redistribute some of their reward.

For leaders who aim to disrupt the persistent tension between ideas of equity versus equality, this research sheds some light on how they might do just that. They should keep in mind that those that are advantaged may be more receptive to the idea that some individuals start off in a situation that makes it much more difficult to accomplish the same goals. Additionally, this is a society that is sensitive to random misfortune and inequality, and people typically take pride in being part of a system that offers everyone an equal opportunity to achieve their goals. These are constructive beliefs to be built upon. For leaders to be effective when proposing laws and policies, whether aimed at addressing justice issues in communities and society, or within organization settings, the research described here suggests they must be mindful to frame proposals in a manner consistent with these views.

http://iacm-conflict.org/content/2012-25th-annual-conference-iacm-stellenbosch-south-africa

Contact between members of groups in conflict can, under the right conditions, reduce prejudice and promote resolution. But how can you convince the conflicting sides to interact? Particularly when the conflict is violent and long lasting? A recent study on the intractable conflict in Cyprus reveals that if participants believe that the other side can change, more positive attitudes develop and compromises are more likely to happen. The study concludes that if Group A thinks that Group B is changeable, then A will feel less anxiety towards B and will be more motivated to communicate with them. The mere belief that the other side does not hold a fixed mindset but rather a more flexible or malleable one – reduces the anxiety between the two groups and enhances motivation for contact.

This has meaningful implications for addressing difficult, long-term conflicts. If examples and illustrations can be presented of times when members of the outgroup underwent significant transformations (even if unrelated to the conflict), it can signal malleability. When each side begins to believe that the other side is capable of changing, then they will be more willing to sit at the negotiation table. The authors conclude: “first, messages of group malleability should be conveyed in a unilateral setting, and only then should the possibility of bilateral contact or compromise be introduced.”

Halperin, E., Crisp, R. J., Husnu, S., Trzesniewski, K. H., Dweck, C. S., & Gross, J. J. (2012). Promoting Intergroup Contact by Changing Beliefs: Group Malleability, Intergroup Anxiety, and Contact Motivation. Emotion. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0028620

According to the World Health Organization, in 2004 there were 182,000 war related deaths and 598,000 deaths due to interpersonal violence. In other words, deaths related to common crime were almost 3 times more recurrent than war casualties, yet social violence is studied more in the field of criminology and less in the conflict and development literature.

Generally, the study of social violence is limited to the impact of socio-economic factors on violence, which puts economic development and governance on the top of the agenda. From this perspective, it has been found that poverty and inequality can be highly correlated to murder rates. However, this approach in many cases has proven limited.

Take Venezuela, for example: with more than 19,000 homicides in 2011, Caracas has become one of the most violent cities in the world. According to the 2009 National Survey on Victimization and Perception of Citizen Insecurity, the murder rate in Venezuela reached 74.5 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants- in neighboring countries like Colombia and Mexico, the rate was 39 and 12 respectively. However, Venezuela’s GDP grew 4% percent in 2011 and is expected to grow 5% in 2012. At the same time, according to the UN’s 2012 State of the Cities in Latin America Report, Venezuela has the lowest rate of income inequality in the region. How can this be explained?

In an effort to incorporate other dimensions of social violence, recent research analyzed the impact of both socio-economic and political-institutional factors in 120 countries. Using data from the World Health Organization’s Global Burden of Disease Project as an indicator of social violence for the years 2002 and 2004, researchers found that political regimes that are weakly institutionalized or ‘hybrid’ in nature -as opposed to strong autocratic or democratic regimes- are more prone to social violence.  In other words, the role of institutional strength and compliance can be paramount when understanding social violence. 

Researchers also found that although risk factors such as the type of political regime and the levels of poverty, ethnic diversity and inequality have an impact on both political and social violence, it is not simple to decipher the way these factors interact and can affect levels of violence. Moreover, in the case of inequality, they noticed that there can be different kinds of inequality that have different impacts. For example, horizontal inequality relates more to political and ideological differences and less to economic inequalities. This may shed some light on the Venezuelan case, where political polarization and institutional fragilities are substantial.

As the role of socio-economic and political factors become clearer, future research could focus on the effects that political and economic transitions have on violence levels. Especially as social violence seems to rise in a manner that sharply contrasts with the global decline in organized armed conflict.

Fox, S., and Hoelscher, K. (2012). Political order, development and social violence. Journal of Peace Research, 49(3), 431–444.

by Taly Harel-Marian

As the US presidential elections are fast approaching, at a time when debates and polls take center stage, it is both relevant and interesting to examine the phenomena known as “rally round the flag”. When people are feeling threatened or challenged by an outside enemy, they tend to provide increased support for their leaders and government. It is not uncommon to hear that leaders take advantage of (or even create) conflicts with other countries to distract the public from domestic problems. A recent example might be the way the Israeli prime minister used a potential attack on Iran as a distraction for the Israeli public away from financial domestic concerns and protests. Whether or not Benjamin Netanyahu raised the issue of a nuclear Iran due to real concerns or just as a tool of gaining more support from the Israeli citizens – it is clear that the rally effect is real.

A recent study examined the way the trust we have in our leaders can effects public approval ratings (i.e., rallying). More specifically, if levels of political trust are high, the extent of the rally should increase in the context of an outside conflict. On the other hand, low levels of trust should decrease the size and magnitude of a rally. Chatagnier’s recent analysis reveals that trust in government plays a large role in determining the occurrence and size of rallies round the flag: “The propensity of an individual who did not vote for the president to rally is significantly mediated by that individual’s level of trust in government. More trusting non-supporters are more likely to rally than are cynical non-supporters.”

This has implications on the way we perceive leaders who initiate multiple conflicts, bringing into question their real motives and agendas. Leaders who seek to improve their domestic status by generating or emphasizing international conflict should rethink their strategy. It seems that it all depends on the level of public trust in their leadership as a prerequisite rather than an outcome.

Chatagnier, J.T. (2012). The effect of trust in government on rallies ’round the flag. Journal of Peace Research, 49(5) 631–645.

by Regina Kim

Whenever there is an international or inter-ethnic conflict, whether it’s in the form of a war, invasion, exploitation, or terrorism, we often hear about the phenomenon of moral exclusion (Opotow, 1990). According to Opotow, each person has a scope of justice, a psychological boundary separating people that are perceived as deserving fair treatment and to which moral rules apply from those for which justice concerns are seen as irrelevant.  As Opotow and Weiss put it, “Norms, moral rules and concerns about rights and fairness govern our conduct toward those inside our scope of justice, but those who are morally excluded are perceived to be expendable, undeserving, exploitable, and irrelevant.” From the Holocaust to Apartheid to current-day acts of terrorism, we are appalled by the violence and cruelty that moral exclusion can result in.

However, moral exclusion also occurs in our everyday work lives.  According to a new study, more than 13% of working people in the United States are victims of abusive forms of supervision, or nonphysical hostility perpetrated by their immediate superiors.  Abusive supervisory behaviors include undermining, public denigration, humiliation, and explosive outbursts.

Researchers examined the conditions leading to abusive supervision and found that perceptions of deep differences in values, attitudes and personality, as well as relationship conflicts and perceived deficits in subordinate’s performance to be key factors.   After studying 183 independent supervisor-subordinate dyads from seven organizations, researchers found that deep value differences evoke relationship conflicts, which produces lower evaluations of subordinate performance, which in turn, lead to higher levels of abusive supervision.  This combination seemed to place the subordinates outside the supervisor’s scope of justice, leading them to engage in abusive supervision.

As our workforce becomes increasingly diverse, effort is being made to address surface-level differences (objective differences in age, gender, and race) through diversity and intercultural communication trainings.  However, it is important to note that individuals who are similar in age, gender and race can and do differ in their values, attitudes and personalities.  Therefore, it is important for organizations to broaden supervisors’ scope of justice by endorsing concepts of pluralism – that there is value in promoting tolerance and appreciation for divergent values.

Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 1–20.

Opotow, S., & Weiss, L. 2000. Denial and the process of moral exclusion in environmental conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 475–490.

Tepper, B.J., Moss, S.E., & Duffy, M.K. (2011).  Predictors of abusive supervision supervisor perceptions of deep=level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance.  Academy of Management Journal, 54, 279-294.

By Kyong Mazzaro

In one of his classic studies on cooperation and competition, Morton Deutsch noted that “individuals who are cooperatively rather than competitively oriented to one another showed such tendencies as more coordination of efforts, more diversity in amount of contributions per member, more subdivision of activity, more achievement pressure”. In other words, cooperation aids in building mutual trust among individuals and in turn can aid in building social capital, efficiency and collaboration.

In the literature on social capital, trust has also been studied from a more macro perspective. Its positive effects on economic growth, for example, evidence the imperative need to underline the economic importance of social phenomena such as cooperation and trust.

Building on this growing interest in studying the social roots of economic growth, recent research has examined the connection between social trust and Human Development.  Unlike economic growth, the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) includes not only data on GDP growth, but also sociopolitical aspects of development such as life expectancy at birth, adult literacy rate, and school enrollment ratios.

Based on HDI fluctuations and national trust scores of 86 countries between 1980 and 2005, results showed that there is an association between trust and the speed with which countries have developed in terms of wealth, education, and health. However, it was also found that these effects are stronger in non-democratic countries, were public goods such as education and health can be used to appeal and appease voters.

These results show that both the economic and non-economic effects of social trust are relevant to the study of development, and can be an interesting subject for future research.

Deutsch, M. Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In Jones, M. R. (Ed), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Oxford, England: Nebraska Press, 275-320.

Ozcan, B, and Bjornskov, C. (2011). Social trust and human development.  Journal of Socio-Economics 40(6): 753–762.

by Regina Kim

Prior research has shown that competitive minorities are more influential in negotiations than cooperative minorities, who are often ignored in these settings (Aaldering & De Dreu, 2010).

Then what are the conditions in which cooperative minorities can have an influence on the group?

Wolfgang Steinel and colleagues examined these effects and found that cooperative minorities are more influential when the negotiations are about values rather than interests.   In addition, when the cooperative approach is grounded in a concern for justice (or morality) rather than money (or interests), the influence that a cooperative minority can exert seems to increase. 

On the other hand, when cooperative minorities reference power in their messages (i.e. “We should make some concessions even though we stand strong and have the resources that they want.”) in an interest conflict, they gain more influence.  However, in a value conflict, cooperative minorities who reference power are less influential than those who do not reference power.   

So, what do these mean? 

These findings suggest that more cooperative approaches to negotiations by members of minority groups will be more influential when their messages are seen as congruent with the situation.  In other words, cooperative approaches seem to better match situations of value conflict, and this “fit” increases their influence.  Furthermore, cooperative minorities who express concerns for justice are perceived as more authentic because their approach in the negotiation (cooperating with the other party) is aligned with the reasoning they give for it (a concern for justice).  This authenticity increases their influence. 

Similarly, cooperative minorities referencing power lower their influence in a value conflict because there is a mis-match between the aim in the negotiation (cooperate with the other party), the reasoning (interest in power), and the setting (value conflict).  Thus, referring to power leads cooperative minorities to have less influence.   On the other hand, in a negotiation over interests, referring to power helps the cooperative minorities because it matches with the setting. 

The take-away message is:  Have your approach fit your aims and goals.   Your influence can be increased by stressing a concern for justice and morality in a value conflict and referencing power and resources in an interest conflict. 

Steinel, Wolfgang, Harinck, Sophia Fieke, Greer, Lindred and Parks, Craig, What Makes a Dove Being Heard? How and When Representative Negotiators are Influenced By Cooperative Minorities in Their Constituency (June 15, 2012). Intl. Association for Conflict Management, IACM 25th Annual Conference. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2084772

Aaldering, H., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2010). When doves fly higher than hawks: The effects of

varying constituencies on representative negotiation. Unpublished manuscript, University

of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

 “Take me out of the community and you’ve taken everything from me.”

-2011 Nobel Laureate, Leymah Gbowee.

by Christianna Gozzi

The keynote address at the 25^th Annual International Association of Conflict Management conference this July in Stellenbosch, South Africa was delivered by 2011 Nobel Laureate Leymah Gbowee. Ms. Gbowee stressed to the audience, many of whom are basic researchers studying conflict and peace in the laboratory; to not forget about the human element of conflict resolution. Peace, she argues, is not delivered or sustained through a checklist, but rather achieved by a non-linear process of healing relationships, humanity and dignity. Despite Ms. Gbowee’s status as international advisor and hero, her edicts have not yet been accepted by institutions which still rely, in her opinion, too heavily on one size fits all diplomacy, institutions, faux inclusion and amnesty.

Is Ms. Gbowee’s perspective dismissed by peace institutions typically operated by members of high power groups because she represents a uniquely feminine way of thinking about conflict and negotiation?

Scholar-Practitioners Deborah Kolb and Gloria Coolidge might say yes. In the classic paper Her Place at the Table: A Consideration of Gender Issues in Negotiation, Kolb and Coolidge argue that women tend to frame and conduct negotiations in a way that is different than the dominant cultural framework of conflict resolution (e.g. separating the person from the problem or gaming aspects of negotiation). They argue that women tend to understand conflict resolution via “a) relational view of others, b) an embedded view of agency, c) an understanding of control through empowerment and d) problem solving through dialogue.”  These research findings resonate with Ms. Gbowee’s approach to achieving a sustained peace in her home country of Liberia.

Kolb and Coolidge posit that women are forced to adapt to a negotiation style that might feel unnatural to them at times. Thus, the female voice is either ignored or is diluted because many women struggle to navigate in these situations without feeling like large pieces of the puzzle are missing. Of course, this does not signify that all women will operate like this in conflict or that women are not able to adapt to different conflict situations, but rather calls into question the lack of balance between the relational elements of conflict resolution and political models of diplomacy and institution building.

The research community should further investigate why, despite calls for inclusion, the people most severely impacted by the conflict—including women and other marginalized groups, are being excluded from the reconstruction conversation.

Kolb, D. & Coolidge, G. G. (1991). Her place at the table: A consideration of gender issues in negotiation.  In J. Z. Rubin and J. W. Breslin (Eds.), Negotiation Theory and Practice (pp.261-277).  Cambridge, MA: Harvard Program on Negotiation, pp. 261-277

“We would draw maps in the sand with sticks,” said Richard Smith. “We’d draw big circles to represent powerful groups in the community, smaller circles for the less powerful, then lay down straight sticks to show friendly relationships between groups and thorny sticks for conflicted relationships.” Spoken by Richard Smith of the South African NGO Action Support Centre during a chance encounter after dinner on the third night of the International Association for Conflict Management (IACM) conference in Stellenbosch, South Africa from July 11-14, these words illustrated one of the conference’s great strengths. For me, the value of attending a conference such as this was not found merely in the presentations given by people, but in the conversations, realizations, and connections made between people when researchers and practitioners convene.

During his presentation the next day Richard elaborated the model and methodologies we had discussed the previous evening. Richard’s framework for conflict transformation (Figure 1)  recognizes the long-term, interdependent, and systemic nature of conflict transformation in the field, bringing together humanitarian assistance, development, and peacebuilding priorities in an integrated framework for positive change. The framework is used to assist practitioners to conceptualise, plan, and monitor humanitarian assistance, development, and peacebuilding processes within a nested systems response towards a long-term social transformation agenda. Further information about this approach can be accessed here.

Figure 1: Conflict Sensitive Approaches to Development: Integrating Humanitarian Assistance, Development and Peacebuilding (Smith, 2011).

What fascinated me about this model was twofold. Firstly, based on ten years of conflict transformation practice in conflict and post conflict countries, the model is very much grounded in the real world. It’s derived from the lab of life, field tested, battle hardened and orientated towards improving peoples’ lives. Secondly, the practical methods of conflict analysis used by Richard and his team – network mapping in the sand and so forth – are exactly the type of methods our team has been adapting from Dynamical Systems Theory to try and identify latent peace capacities in Burma. While we might have the same conceptual framework – that change is complex, dynamic, emergent, and long term – we’ve been working top down, trying to adapt a theory into practice while Richard and his colleagues have  successfully built a model from the ground up based on years of fieldwork. For me, seeing commonality in the middle where theory and practice meet was truly inspiring and underscored the value of cultivating ongoing feedback between researchers and practitioners.

Of course, the next step would be to connect the dots – and attempt to measure and assess the effects of the model systematically over time. This would require sound collaboration between scholars and field-based practitioners.

by Taly Harel-Marian

It is reasonable to assume that conducting referendums related to ongoing peace processes would improve the chances that these processes will be successful. The logic is that asking the population of a nation to vote on a specific agreement will enhance the chances that the ensuing peace will be accepted and last. The underlying assumption is that people would want to take part in important decisions concerning their life, while minimizing their uncertainty and anxiety resulting from conflict.

But do referendums really serve as an important tool for peace-building?

In a recent paper, Loizides (2012) examined the effectiveness of referendums in peace processes by analyzing many cases of referendums conducted around the world. This analysis shows that it is important for leaders, peace activists and legislators to give much attention to the timing of the referendum as one of the main considerations.

One option is to conduct the referendum early on in the process, and thus provide leaders support and direction regarding the peace process. This approach can prepare the public for a peace settlement. One example is the case of South Africa, where a referendum helped in reaching a peace agreement by getting support from the White population within the country. The results gave South African leaders strong support to end Apartheid.  Another alternative is to conduct a referendum after an agreement has been reached or even signed. This happened in Cyprus and resulted in alienating the different groups from the peace process and eventually intensified an already unstable state. Both options seem to have both positive and negative implications for sustainable peace. A post agreement referendum may sometimes enhance the public commitment to the signed agreement but can be risky at other times if the public does not approve. Alternatively, conducting a referendum before reaching an agreement can be helpful in getting a wider public support, but can also worsen the tension between disputed groups.

Loizides concludes that referendums are neither a necessary nor a sufficient factor for a successful peace process. Furthermore, failed referendums might even contribute to the deterioration of the situation. While in some cases referendums play a positive role, in other cases stable peace process can emerge without it. Policymakers should be aware of both positive and negative consequences of a referendum and its various possible designs before following this path.

Loizides, N. (2012). Referendums and Peace Processes in South Africa and Cyprus. International Association for Conflict Management, IACM 25th Annual Conference. Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2084862 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2084862

by Christine Webb

At the recent IACM conference, Fieke Harinck and colleagues from Leidan University gave a talk titled “I am sorry”: The Effects of Apologies on Conflict De-Escalation for High and Low Honor People. Their research explored how individual differences in honor values shape peoples’ experiences of conflicts and their solutions. Broadly, honor values are indicative of a strong sensitivity to improper conduct  in relation to both oneself and others.

In one study, researchers investigated how high versus low honor value participants responded to private versus public insults and subsequent apologies. As expected, results revealed that high honor participants agreed more with statements that somebody who insulted them should apologize. Further, after being publicly insulted, people with high honor values were more inclined to retaliate after a private apology, but less inclined to retaliate after a public apology. In other words, for high honor people, the nature of the repentance must match the context of the insult. This “fit” between apology, conflict, and personal disposition has been explored in other work.

Notably, Santelli, Struthers, and Eaton (2009) examined the effect of regulatory focus orientation on various apology framings. Regulatory focus theory proposes that people pursue goals via one of two independent motivational orientations: prevention and promotion. Whereas a prevention focus emphasizes security, maintenance, and avoiding losses, a promotion focus emphasizes hopes, accomplishments, and approaching gains. Researchers found that these orientations influence how people respond to particular apologies. For example, when a victim’s regulatory focus (i.e. promotion or prevention) fit with the regulatory framing of the transgressor’s form of repentance (either promotive or preventative), there was greater forgiveness compared to when there was incongruence.

What these studies and others reveal is that such “mismatches” between the nature or motivational content of an apology and the needs and goals of the victim can lead both to higher retaliation (as in the first study) and lower forgiveness (as in the second study).  The research suggests that it is important to tailor one’s apologies to both the situation and the individual, as this has the potential to significantly affect the conflict resolution process. Although it underscores a complexity of issues that must be addressed, it sheds light on some reasons why on many occasions, “I’m sorry” is not enough.

Harinck, F., Beersma, B., & Ellemers, N. (2012) “I am sorry”: The effects of apologies on conflict de-escalation for high and low honor people. (paper in prep)

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.

Santelli, A., Struthers, C., & Eaton, J. (2009) Fit to forgive: Exploring the interaction between regulatory focus, repentance, and forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 381-394.

Christine Webb is a doctoral student in Psychology at Columbia University.

by Kyong Mazzaro

The World Trade Organization is the only international body that oversees the rules of international trade. It focuses on promoting free trade by abolishing tariffs and other barriers to commerce, and is involved in intense negotiations that can cover many trade areas and extend over many years.

Despite legitimate criticisms of the insufficient role of developing and less developing countries in trade negotiations -not to mention the limited role of civil society and NGOs-, the WTO is nonetheless one of the only international organizations with highly effective sanctions mechanisms, a dispute settlement body, and a standard practice that privileges consensus in decision-making process. And although the nature of its institutional framework may slow down negotiations, recent research has found that justice principles inherent to the WTO can actually increase the chance of reaching effective agreements.

Focusing on bilateral and multilateral trade talks, researchers found that principles of procedural justice such as transparency, representation, and voluntary decisions, among others, have a central role in the way international trade negotiations unfold through the WTO and effective agreements are reached. Moreover, results indicate that principles of distributive justice that are more linked to the outcomes of negotiations, such as equality, compensation, and need, have a significant impact on the effectiveness of agreements only when procedural principles are respected in the first place.

These findings support the idea that fairness in processes is a critical factor that can enhance effectiveness in negotiation, and provide a strong argument for more inclusive international processes. In this spirit, a future research agenda could include the question of how broader non-state representation in international negotiations could positively affect the sustainability and effectiveness of agreements.

Albin, C., Druckman, D. (2012). Procedures matter:  Justice and effectiveness in international trade negotiations. IACM 25th Annual Conference Paper.

by Christine Webb

Conflict does not just plague human societies. It also afflicts other group-living animals, who (like humans) have evolved strategies for mitigating social conflict. One such strategy is ‘reconciliation,’ first defined by de Waal & van Roosmalen (1979) as post-conflict friendly interaction between former opponents.

Unlike the traditional ‘dispersal hypothesis,’ which posits that animals tend to avoid one another following aggression, the ‘reconciliation hypothesis’ predicts that opponents are preferentially attracted to one another following conflict. It was de Waal’s initial observations of a chimpanzee colony at Arnhem Zoo in the Netherlands that led him and colleagues to speculate that affiliation, rather than dispersion, indeed characterized many post-conflict interactions in this species. This was later confirmed by many carefully designed observational studies and experiments, carried out both in captivity and the wild. Since its initial documentation in chimpanzees, reconciliation has been demonstrated in over 30 primate species as well as a growing number of other social animals.

One of the most consistent findings from over three decades of work on reconciliation is that animals that reconcile are likely to have a more valuable social relationship. For example, in chimpanzees, males form very strong intrasexual bonds (but not females), and reconciliation rates between males are far higher than between females. In rhesus macaques, relatives are more likely to form strong bonds, and hence reconcile conflicts more frequently than do nonrelatives. In one experimental study, researchers manipulated relationship value by training pairs of long-tailed macaques to cooperate to obtain a food reward. They found that monkey dyads significantly increased their tendency to reconcile post-training to cooperate, as compared to baseline reconciliation rates.

These patterns, among many others, reveal interesting similarities with our own species. Like humans, conflict in other animals is an inevitable consequence of group living. But, like humans, conflict also provides important opportunities for resolution and repair, particularly among valued social partners. Evolutionary research and theory in this field points to myriad issues relating our capacity for reconciliation with that of other animals. For example, in most species studied so far, affiliative contact between former opponents is most likely to occur during the first several minutes post-conflict. This in mind, should pre-verbal children be put in “time-out” immediately following a conflict, without having the chance to reconcile their differences themselves? This is but one of the many thought-provoking questions that this work raises.

Cords, M., & Thurnheer, S. (1993). Reconciliation with valuable partners by long-tailed macaques. Ethology, 93(4), 315-325.

de Waal, F. B. M., & van Roosmalen, A. (1979). Reconciliation and consolation among chimpanzees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 5(1), 55-66.

van Schaik, C. P., & Aureli, F. (2000). The Natural History of Valuable Relationships in Primates. In F. Aureli & F. B. M. de Waal (Eds.), Natural Conflict Resolution (pp. 307-333). Berkeley: University of California Press.*

*Natural Conflict Resolution is an interesting and thorough resource for further information on reconciliation behavior in humans and other species.

Christine Webb is a doctoral student in Psychology at Columbia University.

For a long time scholars have speculated that coordinated activities between individuals – dancing, singing, walking, and exercising – increases both cooperation and a sense of group cohesion.  As early as 1915, sociologist Emile Durkheim spoke of “collective effervescence”, a type of ecstatic energy that is produced by group rituals. Similarly, the historian William McNeill (1995), reflecting on his own military experience during WWII, wrote about the bonding effects that synchronous movement had on his unit:

“Words are inadequate to describe the emotion aroused by the prolonged movement in unison that drilling involved. A sense of pervasive well-being is what I recall; more specifically, a strange sense of personal enlargement; a sort of swelling out, becoming bigger than life, thanks to participation in collective rituals.”

More recently, the synchronicity thesis has been given empirical support from Stanford University psychologists Scott S. Wiltermuth and Chip Heath.  In their study, consisting of three experiments, they demonstrated that synchronous activity actually causes people to cooperate and increases group attachment.   

In the first experiment, they had a few groups walk around campus – one group walked normally while the other walked in-step.  After this subjects were asked to play the “weak-link” coordination game – where greater coordination increases payoff. The next two studies involved subjects listening to music with headphones, with some groups instructed to sing along and move plastic cups to the music in unison and others in an asynchronous manner. The final experiment had volunteers play a public-goods game: were collaboration conflicts with personal gain.

The results confirmed the hypothesis that synchronicity leads to greater cooperation and social attachment. On the whole there was significantly more cooperation in the synchronous than the asynchronous group, even when the individuals had incentives to “free ride” and not cooperate.

Handle with care: Getting people to cooperate is to some degree the essence of conflict resolution, however, practitioners should employ this knowledge with caution. A mere glance at the way in which political/military/religious movements have used synchronous activity reminds us that collective action isn’t always a tool for good. Furthermore, studies have shown that such actions significantly influence leader-follower relations: making people more susceptible to the influence of leaders. For a practice that depends on voluntary associations, the subtle manipulation of parties raises important ethical issues. Moreover, none of these studies were conducted on people in conflict. That said, it would be fascinating to see what effects (if any) synchronous activity would have on conflict resolution efforts.

Durkheim, E. (1965). The elementary forms of the religious life (J.W. Swain, Trans.). New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1915)

McNeill, W.H. (1995). Keeping together in time: Dance and drill in human history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wiltermuth, S. S., Chip H. Synchrony and Cooperation. Psychological Science, January 2009.

Wiltermuth, S. S. Synchrony and destructive obedience. Social Influence, 2012.

Roi Ben-Yehuda is a Master’s student in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution at Columbia University and a Ph.D. student at the School of Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University.

by Kyong Mazzaro

There has long been debate over the real value of international law when it comes to ebbing state-level violence. While some are cynical regarding the role of international law, others strongly support international institutions and their role in preventing armed conflict. However, there is a dearth of research available on the effects of international law on state behavior, and on the conditions that could foster compliance with the law at an international level.

A recent study has shown that international law can play an important role in shaping leader’s decisions regarding the use of force in the cases of territorial disputes. Using a data set of 165 territorial disputes from 1945 to 2000, considering 3,840 monthly observations of challenging states, and analyzing expert legal assessments from scholars, rulings from international legal bodies, and government documents for each dispute, scholars found that leaders with stronger legal claims are more likely to pursue negotiations instead of using the force.

The study concluded that when international law succeeds to provide clear focal points that facilitate agreements, cooperation, coordination, and distribution, it can have a positive effect on dispute settlement processes. This is further evidence that even though military power is an important aspect of world politic dynamics, the rule of law and its potential for preventing the use of force must not be underestimated.

Huth, P., Croco, S. and Appel, B. (2012), Law and the Use of Force in World Politics: The Varied Effects of Law on the Exercise of Military Power in Territorial Disputes. International Studies Quarterly, 56: 17–31

Kyong Mazzaro is a Project Coordinator at the Advanced Consortium on Cooperation, Conflict and Complexity (AC4) at Columbia University and the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution (ICCCR) at Teachers College.

by Lily Ng

When given two contradictory statements, people can respond in four different ways. They can deny the contradiction, discount the information that is contradictory, compare the information and decide which is right and which is wrong, or retain the basic elements of truth in both perspectives and tolerate the contradiction.

The acceptance of contradiction is known as dialectical thinking.

Studies have shown that fundamental differences exist between people from Western and Chinese cultures in dealing with contradiction. Chinese share a tendency to approach contradiction with tolerance; by finding a “middle way” by which truth can be found in each of two competing propositions. In contrast, European-Americans favor differentiation strategies that polarize contradictory perspectives in an effort to decide which side is correct and which is incorrect. Both ways of thinking can be traced back to the basic intellectual frameworks rooted in Eastern Confucianism versus Western Aristotelian logic.

Although both forms of reasoning have their merits, these cultural differences have been shown to have profound effects on conflict management. One study showed that American participants’ resolutions of conflicts were non-compromising, blaming one side for the causes of the problems, demanding changes from one side to attain a solution, and offering no compromise in dealing with interpersonal conflicts. In contrast, Chinese respondents were much more dialectical, usually attributing blame to both sides and preferring a compromise approach to resolve the contradictions. Ultimately, dialectical reasoning may be preferable for negotiating adaptively in complex social interactions, and identifying the conditions that foster this in the negotiation context is key.

Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741-754.

Lily Ng is a Master’s student in Social-Organizational Psychology at Teachers College, Columbia University.