HRM624 — Midterm Summary (Lectures 1–22)

📘 Lecture 1 — INTRODUCTION TO CONFLICT

📖 Overview: This lecture introduces conflict as a natural, inevitable, and ubiquitous phenomenon in all human social relationships. It establishes foundational definitions of conflict, distinguishes it from disputes, and explores key concepts including interpersonal conflict, mixed-motive situations, and the roles of agents and principals in conflict situations, using practical examples like fender-benders.

🗂️ Topics Covered

The lecture covers the nature and ubiquity of conflict, challenging its negative reputation. It provides multiple definitions of conflict, interpersonal conflict, and mixed-motive situations. The distinction between conflict and dispute is clarified, along with the concept of legal dispute. Practical guidelines for handling a fender-bender are given as a real-world example. Finally, key roles in conflict are defined: agent, principal, advocate, and constituent.

📝 Lecture Summary

INTRODUCTION TO CONFLICT

Conflict is everywhere and is a natural and inevitable part of all human social relationships. It occurs at all levels of society: intrapsychic, interpersonal, intragroup, intergroup, intranational, and international. Some social scientists have unfairly linked conflict with psychopathology, social disorder, and war, but conflict is not deviant or sick behavior. It is largely a perceived phenomenon, meaning our perception of the situation determines if conflict exists. Conflict can be healthy or unhealthy and is not the opposite of order. The difference in thinking between people often causes conflict, and parties in conflict believe they have incompatible goals, aiming to neutralize, injure, or destroy one another. Importantly, conflict is the root of personal and social change, preventing stagnation and stimulating interest.

💡 Why this matters: Understanding conflict as a normal, potentially healthy process shifts the focus from avoiding it to managing it effectively.

Definitions

Conflict is defined in several ways:

• A state of opposition, disagreement, or incompatibility between two or more people or groups.
• A state of opposition between persons or ideas or interests.
• A hostile encounter between two or more people.
• Usually based upon a difference over goals, objectives, or expectations, often involving competition over limited resources and/or perceived or actual incompatible goals.
• An escalated, natural competition between two or more parties about scarce resources, power, and prestige.

🔑 Definition — Interpersonal conflict: An actual or perceived incompatibility of goals between two or more people or entities. Incompatibility need not be realized by either disputant (latent conflict) nor need it be actual/real (false conflict).

🔑 Definition — Mixed-Motive Situation: A conflict situation characterized by a combination of contrient and promotive interdependence. In this situation, some goals are incompatible, while others are complementary. Virtually all conflicts are mixed-motive situations.

Dispute

The term dispute implies that incompatibilities are conscious on the part of at least one party and that the incompatibilities are uppermost in their minds. Disputes often relate to grievances arising from past behavior or events.

Definitions of dispute include:

• A disagreement or argument about something important.
• A conflict being expressed outwardly where the incompatibility of goals is the main focus.
• A quarrel over a divisive issue (e.g., territory, resources) where force is not being considered.

🔑 Definition — Legal Dispute: A dispute in which some of the contentions can be expressed as a cause of action, or as a defense to a cause of action.

Fender-Bender

A fender-bender is a collision involving motor vehicles that results in minor damage. In such a situation, the disputants have incompatible interests. The lecture provides tips for surviving a fender-bender:

1. Keep calm: Stay cool and don't engage in shouting.
2. Call the police: Report the accident even if it is minor.
3. Exchange information: Write down names, addresses, phone numbers, driver's license numbers, car details, insurance information, and witness information from all parties involved.
4. Consider your deductible: Your deductible is the amount you have to pay out of pocket when an insurance claim is filed. For example, if your deductible is Rs.5000 and your car needs Rs.20,000 worth of repairs, you may only receive Rs.15,000 from the insurance company.
5. Contact your insurance company: Report the accident; failing to do so could work against you if the case ends up in arbitration.
6. Get an estimate and repairs: Get an estimate for repairs. Some insurance companies may require two separate estimates.

Agent

🔑 Definition — Agent: One standing in the shoes of a disputant during an interpersonal conflict, acting for the disputant.

🔑 Definition — Principal: The disputant for whom an agent is acting.

🔑 Definition — Advocate: An agent having a special obligation to represent the interests of his or her principal vigorously, zealously, and with a certain standard of competence.

🔑 Definition — Constituent: One whom the conflict affects but who is not a disputant, agent, or advocate; sometimes called a stakeholder. For example, a disputant's family and friends.

⭐ Key Takeaways

Conflict is a natural, inevitable, and perceived phenomenon rooted in incompatible goals and is key to personal and social change. The lecture clearly distinguishes conflict from dispute, with disputes involving conscious awareness of incompatibility. Most conflicts are mixed-motive situations, containing both conflicting and shared goals. A practical example, the fender-bender, illustrates how even minor conflict requires systematic management. Finally, the roles of agent, principal, advocate, and constituent define the key players in any conflict scenario.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. What are the six levels of society at which conflict occurs?
2. What is the key difference between a conflict and a dispute according to this lecture?
3. Define a "mixed-motive situation" and explain why most conflicts fit this description.
4. In the context of a fender-bender, what is a deductible and how does it work with an insurance claim?
5. What is the specific obligation of an "advocate" that distinguishes this role from a general "agent"?

📘 Lecture 2 — DISPUTE RESOLUTION 1

📖 Overview: This lecture introduces conflict as a natural and inevitable part of human social relationships and explores the critical role of emotions in conflict management. It then provides a comprehensive overview of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods, including negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, and adjudication, along with their legal context in Pakistan and the basic models of dispute resolution processes.

🗂️ Topics Covered

The lecture begins by defining conflict and its prevalence across all levels of society, followed by an in-depth discussion of how positive and negative emotions like anger, pride, guilt, and worry affect negotiation processes and outcomes. It then defines Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and its various forms—negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, and adjudication—and explains the concepts of contrient and promotive interdependence and the roles of disputants, agents, and advocates. Finally, it covers the advantages of ADR, the factors distinguishing dispute resolution processes, and presents visual models for negotiation, mediation, and adjudication.

📝 Lecture Summary

Conflict

Conflict is a natural and inevitable part of all human social relationships. It occurs at all levels of society: intrapsychic, interpersonal, intra-group, inter-group, intra-national and international. People with different beliefs, values and expectations effectively live in different worlds. This leads to a situation where the more they talk, the more they experience frustration and hostility, which may result in violent conflict. This course deals with conflict dynamics and the cooperative process of conflict management, including negotiation, mediation, facilitation, problem solving, and conflict resolution.

Emotions in Conflict Management

Emotions play an important role in conflict management, although their effect has only been studied in recent years. Emotions have the potential to play either a positive or negative role in negotiation. During negotiation, the decision of whether or not to settle rests in part on emotional factors. Negative emotions can cause intense and even irrational behavior, causing conflicts to escalate and negotiations to break down, while positive emotions facilitate reaching an agreement and help to maximize joint gains. Humans have 400 emotions, with fear, anger, depression, and satisfaction being the primary emotions.

Positive affect in Negotiation

Even before the negotiation process starts, people in a positive mood have more confidence and higher tendencies to plan to use a cooperative strategy. During the negotiation, negotiators who are in a positive mood tend to enjoy the interaction more, show less contentious behaviour, use less aggressive tactics, and more cooperative strategies.

Negative affect in Negotiation

Negative affect has detrimental effects on various stages in the negotiation process. Although various negative emotions affect negotiation outcomes, by far the most researched is anger. Angry negotiators plan to use more competitive strategies and to cooperate less, even before the negotiation starts. These competitive strategies are related to reduced joint outcomes. During negotiation, anger disrupts the process by reducing the level of trust, clouding parties’ judgment, narrowing parties’ focus of attention, and changing their central goal from reaching an agreement to retaliating against the other side.

The effect of the Partners’ Emotions

Specific emotions were found to have different effects on the opponent’s feelings and strategies chosen:

a) Anger: Anger caused the opponents to place lower demands and to concede more in a zero-sum negotiation, but also to evaluate the negotiation less favorably. It provoked both dominating and yielding behaviors of the opponent.

b) Pride: Pride led to more integrative and compromise strategies by the partner.

c) Guilt: Guilt or regret expressed by the negotiator led to a better impression of her by the opponent; however, it also led the opponent to place higher demands.

d) Worry or Disappointment: Worry or Disappointment left a bad impression on the opponent but led to relatively lower demands by the opponent.

Conflict resolution

There are many ways to resolve conflicts—surrendering, running away, overpowering your opponent with violence, filing a lawsuit, etc. The movement toward Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), sometimes referred to simply as conflict resolution, grew out of the belief that there are better options than using violence or going to court. Today, the terms ADR and conflict resolution are used somewhat interchangeably and refer to a wide range of processes that encourage nonviolent dispute resolution outside of the traditional court system. The field of conflict resolution also includes efforts in schools and communities to reduce violence and bullying and help young people develop communication and problem-solving skills.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a set of dispute resolution processes used in the resolution of legal, commercial, and other interpersonal conflicts: a) Other than litigation b) Other than doing nothing c) Other than illegal or violent means

🔑 Definition — Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): In simple words, a way of resolving disputes without going to court.

Forms of resolving conflict (Alternative Dispute Resolution)

Common forms of conflict resolution include: a) Negotiation b) Mediation c) Conciliation d) Arbitration e) Adjudication

Negotiation

Negotiation is a discussion among two or more people with the goal of reaching an agreement. Broadly speaking, negotiation is an interaction of influences. Such interactions, for example, include the process of resolving disputes, agreeing upon courses of action, bargaining for individual or collective advantage, or crafting outcomes to satisfy various interests. Negotiation is thus a form of alternative dispute resolution.

Negotiation involves two basic elements: the process and the substance. The process refers to how the parties negotiate—the context of the negotiation, the parties to the negotiation, the relationships among these parties, the communication between these parties, and the tactics used by the parties. The substance refers to what the parties negotiate over—the agenda, the issues, the options, and the agreements reached at the end.

🔑 Definition — Negotiation: A discussion among two or more people with the goal of reaching an agreement.

Mediation

Mediation is a voluntary and confidential process in which a neutral third-party facilitator helps people discuss difficult issues and negotiate an agreement. Basic steps in the process include gathering information, framing the issues, developing options, negotiating, and formalizing agreements. Parties in mediation create their own solutions, and the mediator does not have any decision-making power over the outcome.

🔑 Definition — Mediation: A voluntary and confidential process where a neutral third-party helps people negotiate an agreement.

Conciliation

Conciliation is the least intrusive of third-party processes. A neutral person agreeable to all parties is selected to serve as conciliator. The conciliator serves as a go-between. Typically, the conciliator meets separately with each party in attempts to persuade the parties to proceed with each other. Thus, the conciliator’s primary role is to reestablish or improve communication between the parties. When the parties are too angry to speak with each other, a conciliator may be all that is needed.

🔑 Definition — Conciliation: A process where a neutral party (conciliator) serves as a go-between to reestablish or improve communication between disputing parties.

Arbitration

Arbitration is a process in which a third-party neutral, after reviewing evidence and listening to arguments from both sides, issues a decision to settle the case. Arbitration is often used in commercial and labor/management disputes.

🔑 Definition — Arbitration: A process where a neutral third party reviews evidence and issues a binding decision to settle a case.

Adjudication

Adjudication is the legal process by which an arbiter or judge reviews evidence and argumentation including legal reasoning set forth by opposing parties or litigants to come to a decision which determines rights and obligations between the parties involved.

Three types of disputes are resolved through adjudication: a) Disputes between private parties, such as individuals or corporations. b) Disputes between private parties and public officials. c) Disputes between public officials or public bodies.

🔑 Definition — Adjudication: The legal process where a judge or arbiter reviews evidence and legal reasoning to determine rights and obligations between parties.

Interdependent relationship

Contrient interdependence Defined – meeting one party’s goals is seen to harm the other party’s goals. Zero-sum situations are those seen by the parties as perfectly contrient – the more one party is benefited, the more the other is harmed. In other words, benefit “sums to zero.”

Promotive interdependence Interdependence may also be positive (known as “promotive interdependence”). Defined – meeting one party’s goals is seen to promote the other party’s goals.

Virtually all conflicts combine promotive and contrient interdependence. An interpersonal conflict in which both the promotive and contrient aspects of interdependence are recognized is known as a “mixed-motive” situation.

🔑 Definition — Contrient interdependence: A situation where one party’s gain is perceived as the other party’s loss (a zero-sum situation). 🔑 Definition — Promotive interdependence: A situation where one party’s gain promotes the other party’s gain. 🔑 Definition — Mixed-motive situation: An interpersonal conflict where both promotive and contrient aspects of interdependence are recognized.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Pakistan

Various alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques are used in Pakistan. Some of the relevant laws/provisions dealing with ADR are as follows:

1. Section 89-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (as amended in 2002) read with Order X Rule 1-A
2. The Small Claims and Minor Offences Courts Ordinance, 2002
3. Sections 102-106 of the Local Government Ordinance, 2001
4. Sections 10 and 12 of the Family Courts Act, 1964
5. The Arbitration Act, 1940
6. Article 156 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (National Economic Council)
7. Article 184 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (Original Jurisdiction when federal or provincial governments are at dispute with one another)

Parties to Conflict

Disputants In the interpersonal conflict, those who have incompatible goals are called disputants. Disputants may be individuals, groups, corporations, congregations, communities, nations, or any collective of people.

🔑 Definition — Disputants: Those who have incompatible goals in an interpersonal conflict.

Agents One who acts on behalf of a disputant is called an agent. Or a representative who acts on behalf of other persons or organizations is called an agent.

🔑 Definition — Agent: A representative who acts on behalf of a disputant or other persons/organizations.

Advocate An advocate is a kind of agent. The one who speaks on behalf of another, especially in a legal context, is called an advocate. Implicit in the concept is the notion that the represented lacks the knowledge, skill, ability, or standing to speak for themselves. Common advocates include lawyers, activists, and public relations consultants.

🔑 Definition — Advocate: A kind of agent who speaks on behalf of another, especially in a legal context.

Dispute

A dispute is a disagreement or argument about something important.

Dispute Resolution

The methods that people use to resolve interpersonal conflicts are called dispute resolution.

Advantages of ADR

• Less formal
• Less costly
• Less time-consuming than going to court
• Results are specific to your needs

Factors that Distinguish Dispute Resolution Processes

Dispute resolution processes are distinguished from each other on the following bases:

• Who decides the outcome?
• Who participates in the process?
• Under what auspices is the process provided?

Negotiation and Adjudication

Negotiation: dialogue or communication between the disputants aimed at settling interpersonal conflict. Adjudication: process in which a neutral third party renders a binding decision in interpersonal conflict.

Negotiation Models

The lecture provides visual models for different dispute resolution forms. In a Simple Negotiation model, the two disputants are the decision makers who "persuade" each other. In a Negotiation with Agents or Advocates model, the disputants use agents or advocates to persuade the other side's decision makers. In the Mediation Model, a neutral third party (the mediator) "assists" the disputants, who are still the decision makers. In the Nonbinding Evaluation model, a neutral party provides a nonbinding decision. The Basic Dispute Resolution Forms are: Simple Negotiation, Agent or Advocate-assisted Negotiation, Mediation, Nonbinding Evaluation, Mixed/Hybrid ADR, Arbitration, Agency Adjudication, Adjudication, and Litigation.

💡 Why this matters: These models visually demonstrate the spectrum of dispute resolution, from party-controlled processes (negotiation) to third-party-controlled processes (adjudication), helping to choose the right approach for a given conflict.

⭐ Key Takeaways

The most critical points for exam preparation are: First, conflict is a natural and inevitable part of all human relationships, occurring at every level of society, and while negative emotions like anger can escalate conflict and break down negotiations, positive emotions facilitate cooperation and agreement. Second, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) encompasses five main forms—negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, and adjudication—each with a distinct role for the third party, from no role (negotiation) to a binding decision-making role (arbitration, adjudication). Third, you must understand the key distinctions between contrient interdependence (zero-sum, where one's gain is another's loss) and promotive interdependence (positive-sum, where one's gain helps another), and that most conflicts are "mixed-motive." Fourth, be able to identify the roles of disputants (those with incompatible goals), agents (representatives), and advocates (legal representatives), and understand that the power to decide the outcome is a key factor distinguishing ADR processes. Finally, remember the legal basis for ADR in Pakistan, particularly Section 89-A of the Civil Procedure Code, and the specific advantages of ADR: it is less formal, less costly, and less time-consuming than litigation.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. Define contrient interdependence and promotive interdependence, and explain why most conflicts are considered "mixed-motive" situations.
2. List and briefly describe the five common forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) discussed in this lecture.
3. Explain the difference between an agent and an advocate in the context of conflict resolution, and give an example of each.
4. How does the emotion of anger specifically affect a negotiator's behavior and the outcome of a negotiation according to the lecture?
5. What are the three factors that distinguish different dispute resolution processes from one another, and which factor is most critical in differentiating negotiation from adjudication?

📘 Lecture 3 — DISPUTE RESOLUTION II

📖 Overview: This lecture continues the exploration of dispute resolution by categorizing processes based on who makes the final decision: a neutral third party (adjudication) or the disputants themselves (negotiation). It further introduces mixed or hybrid processes that combine elements of both, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding the full spectrum of conflict management options.

🗂️ Topics Covered

The lecture is structured around two main categories of dispute resolution: Adjudication (where a neutral third party decides) and Negotiation (where the disputants decide). Within Adjudication, it covers litigation, agency adjudication, and arbitration. Within Negotiation, it covers simple (unassisted) and assisted forms, including agent/advocate-assisted, mediation, and nonbinding evaluation. Finally, it introduces mixed (hybrid) processes like mediation-arbitration and arbitration-mediation.

📝 Lecture Summary

DISPUTE RESOLUTION II

Dispute resolution processes are divided into two main categories based on who decides the outcome: Adjudication and Negotiation.

Adjudication

In adjudication, the decision maker is a neutral third party, rather than the disputants themselves.

🔑 Definition — Adjudication: A dispute resolution process where a neutral third party (not the disputants) makes the binding or non-binding decision on the outcome.

Kinds of Adjudication The important forms of adjudication are: Litigation, Agency Adjudication, and Arbitration.

Litigation Litigation is adjudication in the court system, under legal auspices, where the adjudicator is a judge.

• Only certain situations can legally be taken to court.
• The process is very formal and structured to protect the due process rights of the litigants.
• In litigation, only certain kinds of outcomes are legally possible.

Agency adjudication Agency adjudication is similar to litigation, except that the law underlying recourse to the process is regulatory.

• The adjudicator is often called an administrative law judge or hearing officer.
• It may be less formal and structured than litigation.

Arbitration Arbitration is the form of adjudication in which the authority of the adjudicator is conferred by the disputants' contract.

• It may be provided for by a court rather than privately, but if so:
  1. The parties are free to decline arbitration, or
  2. If the parties must participate, they are free to disregard the results (making this a nonbinding evaluation).

Negotiation and Adjudication: Basic Distinction

In negotiation, the disputants decide the issue, whereas in adjudication, the neutral third party decides the issue.

🔑 Definition — Basic Distinction: The core difference is the identity of the decision-maker: disputants decide in negotiation; a neutral third party decides in adjudication.

Negotiation

Negotiation is the process in which disputants seek to resolve an interpersonal conflict through dialogue or another form of communication. In negotiation, the disputants themselves decide mutually whether, and on what terms, the conflict should be resolved.

Forms of Negotiation There are various types of negotiation:

• Assisted (Facilitated) Negotiation
• Unassisted (simple) Negotiation

Simple negotiation In simple negotiation, only participants are the disputants.

Assisted (or facilitated) negotiation In assisted negotiation, the disputants are joined by others.

Types of Assisted Negotiation The various types include:

• Agent or advocate-assisted: The disputants' representatives conduct the negotiation.
• Mediation: A neutral third party assists the disputants in settling the dispute.
• Nonbinding evaluation: A neutral third party renders a nonbinding evaluation of the conflict.

Mixed (Hybrid) Processes

Processes that combine the attributes of two or more of the major forms of dispute resolution are called mixed (hybrid) processes. They combine elements of mediation, adjudication, and/or nonbinding evaluation.

Basic Dispute Resolution The lecture provides a diagram showing the overarching categories: Negotiation, Assisted/Facilitated, Mixed/Hybrid ADR, and Adjudication. The types fall under these categories:

• Negotiation: Simple, Agent or advocate-assisted
• Assisted/Facilitated: Mediation, Nonbinding Evaluation
• Adjudication: Litigation, Agency Adjudication, Arbitration
• Mixed/Hybrid ADR: Combines elements of the above

Some of the Types of Mixed Dispute Resolution Processes

1. Mediation-Arbitration In this process, mediating parties submit their dispute to arbitration if mediation does not result in settlement.

2. Arbitration-mediation In this process, an arbitrator issues an award but keeps it a secret and destroys it if the disputants reach agreement in a subsequent mediation.

⭐ Key Takeaways

The single most critical distinction in dispute resolution is who makes the final decision: a neutral third party (adjudication) or the disputants themselves (negotiation). Adjudication has three main forms—litigation (court), agency adjudication (regulatory), and arbitration (contractual)—each with varying levels of formality and party control. Negotiation can be simple (only disputants) or assisted (involving agents, mediators, or evaluators). Finally, mixed or hybrid processes like mediation-arbitration creatively combine elements from these two broad categories to leverage the strengths of each.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. What is the fundamental difference between adjudication and negotiation?
2. Name the three kinds of adjudication discussed in the lecture.
3. What distinguishes agency adjudication from litigation?
4. List the three types of assisted negotiation.
5. Describe the difference between mediation-arbitration and arbitration-mediation.

📘 Lecture 4 — Preconceptions About Conflict I

📖 Overview: This lecture explores common misperceptions and preconceptions about interpersonal conflict that impair our ability to respond effectively and choose appropriate alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes. It introduces Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory to explain how societal structures and individual development reinforce these misperceptions, and examines pressures against innovation in conflict management.

🗂️ Topics Covered

This lecture begins by clarifying key points about interpersonal conflict from previous lessons, then examines misperceptions about conflict—focusing on why they are often ubiquitous yet invisible. It introduces the craft metaphor of pedagogical development, explains Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory and the macrosystem, details the components of mastery of environment, and concludes by analyzing pressures against innovation in conflict resolution approaches.

📝 Lecture Summary

Introduction

This lecture discusses misperceptions about conflict. Before proceeding, several points about conflict must be clear from previous lectures. Interpersonal conflict is all around us—we confront it when deciding who will do housework, attend staff meetings, negotiate for a raise, or discipline a child. Any time we deal with another person, the possibility of incompatible goals raises the possibility of conflict. We must remember that conflict is not the opposite of order, interpersonal conflict is to be distinguished from inner conflict, conflict is an escalated but natural competition between two or more parties, conflict is an unusual occurrence, and the extreme form of conflict is violence, which generally hurts weaker parties.

Misperception in Interpersonal Conflict

There are certain misperceptions about interpersonal conflict. These misperceptions are often ubiquitous and invisible, meaning they are everywhere but not easily recognized. The importance of recognizing these misperceptions is critical because they impair our ability to respond to conflict and impair our ability to choose ADR processes and providers.

Pedagogical Development

The craft metaphor of pedagogical development explains how narrow experiences create narrow beliefs and assumptions. Bronfenbrenner’s theory (bioecological systems theory) defines complex “layers” of environment, each having an effect on the development of persons and their consequential disagreements or conflicts. There is a development of knowledge base in favor of ADR to clarify the advantages of non-adversarial approaches.

🔑 Definition — Craft metaphor of pedagogical development: The idea that our experiences shape our beliefs and assumptions, and narrow experiences lead to narrow, limiting beliefs about conflict and its resolution.

Pressures against Innovation – Social Ecology

The macro system reflects dominant values and perceptions. Individuals gain practice and proficiency in these dominant ways. Individuals then transmit these dominant values and perceptions to children. Over time, the efficacy of dominant values and perceptions seems “obvious.” Thus, individuals perpetuate dominant values and perceptions, creating strong pressures against innovation.

🔑 Definition — Macrosystem: The overall social structure that acts as a source of blueprints for individuals, including important institutions like the court system and governmental structure.

Bio-ecological Systems Theory

Bronfenbrenner, an eminent developmental psychologist, named the overall social structure that acts as a source of blueprints for individuals the macrosystem. The macrosystem includes the important institutions in which we operate—the court system, the governmental structure, and so on. In his influential theory of Social Ecology, Bronfenbrenner postulated that there is a synergistic relationship between the macrosystem and the individual.

This theory looks at a child’s development within the context of the system of relationships that form his or her environment. Bronfenbrenner’s theory defines complex “layers” of environment, each having an effect on a child’s development. This theory has recently been renamed “bioecological systems theory” to emphasize that a child’s own biology is a primary environment fueling her development. The interaction between factors in the child’s maturing biology, his immediate family/community environment, and the societal landscape fuels and steers his development. Changes or conflict in any one layer will ripple throughout other layers. To study a child’s development then, we must look not only at the child and her immediate environment, but also at the interaction of the larger environment as well.

The macrosystem is structured to reflect the cultural belief systems of its inhabitants—because a society is composed of its individual members, and their collective efforts maintain the macrosystem. The macrosystem’s structure generates situations in which individuals, to survive and do well, must adopt blueprints and use tools consistent with the overall cultural belief systems.

💡 Why this matters: This theory explains why adversarial approaches to conflict are so deeply ingrained—they are reinforced at every level of society, from family to institutions, making innovation in conflict resolution difficult.

Components of Mastery of Environment

The following are the components of mastery:

1. Idea, plan or roadmap – the conceptual framework for action.
2. Skills, strategies, tool (a tool box of mastery) – the practical means to execute the plan.
3. Proficiency – the ability to competently apply the right tools (skills and means) to a given situation to execute the plan of action.
4. Apparent superiority of status quo – because:
   • a. Practice creates high degree of efficiency
   • b. Testing new ways will necessarily lack efficiency
   • c. The failures of innovations are taken as the inferiority of innovation over the existing practice, rather than to the lack of efficiency.

🔑 Definition — Proficiency: The ability to competently apply the right tools, skills, and means to a given situation to execute a plan of action.

Pressures against Innovation

Here are some pressures against innovation:

• a. We lack proficiency in using new ways and tools.
• b. Poor and inefficient outcomes result from our lack of proficiency.
• c. Poor and inefficient outcomes are likely to be attributed to the innovative ideas or means themselves, rather than to our lack of skill in using them.

💡 Why this matters: This explains why people resist new conflict resolution methods like ADR—initial attempts are clumsy and ineffective, reinforcing the belief that traditional adversarial methods are superior.

⭐ Key Takeaways

The most critical understanding from this lecture is that misperceptions about conflict are deeply embedded in our social ecology and are often invisible, yet they fundamentally impair our ability to manage conflict effectively and choose appropriate resolution processes. Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory demonstrates that conflict perceptions are shaped by multiple interacting layers of environment, from individual biology to family to societal institutions, with changes in any layer rippling through all others. The macrosystem—including courts and government—reinforces dominant adversarial values, which are transmitted across generations through practice and proficiency. The components of mastery (idea, skills, proficiency) explain why the status quo appears superior, and pressures against innovation arise because lack of proficiency with new methods leads to poor outcomes that are wrongly attributed to the innovation itself rather than to lack of practice. Students must remember that resistance to ADR is not necessarily rational—it is a product of social ecology and learned behavior.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. What are the two primary ways that misperceptions about conflict impair our ability?
2. According to Bronfenbrenner’s theory, what happens when changes or conflict occur in one layer of the environment?
3. What are the three components of mastery of environment, and how do they relate to each other?
4. Why do failures of innovations tend to be attributed to the innovation itself rather than to lack of efficiency?
5. How does the synergistic relationship between the macrosystem and individuals perpetuate dominant values and perceptions about conflict?

📘 Lecture 5 — PRECONCEPTIONS ABOUT CONFLICT II

📖 Overview: This lecture explores how cultural blueprints, particularly the adversarial and individualistic approach prevalent in Westernized societies like the USA, shape our perceptions and management of conflict. It introduces Bronfenbrenner's Theory of Social Ecology to explain how societal structures perpetuate conflict blueprints, and discusses the challenges of introducing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) into such a system.

🗂️ Topics Covered

The lecture begins with Bronfenbrenner's Theory of Social Ecology and the macrosystem, then examines cultural beliefs about interpersonal conflict in the USA, including the adversarial approach and its reflection in the American judicial system. It covers the role of stress and emotion in creating threat perception, the nature of ADR as an innovation, reasons for ADR failure, the self-perpetuating cycle of the conflict blueprint, and the lawyer's standard philosophical map as defined by Len Riskin.

📝 Lecture Summary

Bronfenbrenner’s Theory of Social Ecology

Uri Bronfenbrenner, a developmental psychologist, named the overall social structure that acts as a source of blueprints for individuals the macrosystem. The macrosystem includes important institutions like the court system and governmental structure. Bronfenbrenner's theory defines complex "layers" of environment, each affecting a child's development. The interaction between factors in the child's maturing biology, immediate family/community environment, and societal landscape fuels development. Changes or conflict in any one layer will ripple throughout other layers.

🔑 Definition — Macrosystem: The overall social structure that acts as a source of blueprints for individuals, including important institutions like the court system and government.

The macrosystem is structured to reflect the cultural belief systems of its inhabitants. To survive and do well, individuals must adopt blueprints and use tools consistent with the overall cultural belief systems.

💡 Why this matters: This theory explains why deeply ingrained cultural approaches to conflict are so resistant to change—they are woven into the very fabric of society.

Significance for the study of ADR in USA

Before studying conflict and resolution processes, it is necessary to appreciate that people, particularly from westernized cultures like the United States, have a narrow perspective on what conflict is and how it is best managed. The approach to handling interpersonal conflict is: (a) Highly individualistic, (b) Featuring adversarial resolution of most disputes, and (c) Reflected in a wide variety of societal institutions and policies.

Cultural beliefs about interpersonal conflict include the role of religion and the conceptualization of conflict as a battle or competition. There is a tendency to see conflict as a "zero-sum" situation, which is an important factor in the underuse of "value-enlarging" processes like principled negotiation and facilitative mediation.

🔑 Definition — Zero-sum situation: A situation where one party's gain is exactly balanced by another party's loss, so there is no possibility of mutual benefit.

📌 Example: Individual beliefs vs. globalization, and parents vs. children, are given as examples of conflicts where these adversarial beliefs operate.

Adversarial approach in USA

In the American system of government, the formalized structure built to handle disputes is the judicial system. Of all social systems reflecting the competitive/adversarial blueprint for conflict resolution, the American judicial system is the most stark. The American legal process is an adversary process built on the notion that justice is achievable only through competition. Members of the culture acquire the belief that this individualistic, adversarial approach is "best" because these cultural preferences and structures tend to be invisible to inhabitants. Developing individuals use adversarial approaches for survival and to flourish in the new environment.

🔑 Definition — Adversary system: A legal system built on the notion that justice is achievable only through competition between adversaries.

Most opportunities to deal with conflict are set within institutional structures that encourage adversarial approaches. For example, conflict resolution is portrayed on TV and in movies as adversarial, and the government handles conflict this way as well.

Role of stress and emotion in creating threat for a disputant

Fear, anger, depression, and the urge for happiness lead to negative stereotyping of other disputants and the belief that their objectives are at odds with one's own objectives (zero-sum situation). There is a tendency for social perception during conflict to produce overly simplified, demonizing, and negative portraits of the other disputant. The ambiguity of interpersonal conflict means that ambiguous behavior is often taken to be true.

📌 Example: A "happy family" is discussed as an example where underlying conflicts may be misinterpreted due to emotional states.

ADR

ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) can be thought of as a radically innovative set of ways and means and a radically different method for the resolution of conflict imposed on a culture featuring an adversarial and individualistic approach. ADR innovation is often seen through the "lens" of the traditional adversary system, which typically leads to failure, causing its users to reject ADR. When ADR processes are adopted, often adversarial features are added to them, which dilute their effectiveness.

Why strategies of change fail (ADR failure)

The four reasons why strategies of change fail are: (a) Resistance and lack of support from others, (b) Application of existing (traditional) ways and means, rather than innovative solutions, (c) Lack of proficiency in using innovative tools, and (d) Support by social structures of traditional ways to resolve disputes. There is a tendency for individuals to attribute failures of innovation to the superiority of the traditional approach rather than to these four reasons.

How the Conflict Blueprint Perpetuates Itself

The conflict blueprint perpetuates itself through a cycle. Individuals usually experience blueprint-consistent social institutions. Social institutions reflect the predominant adversarial blueprint (the Invisible Veil). Individuals get lots of practice applying adversarial tools and become proficient in using them. Powerful and influential people (lawmakers, judges, school administrators) apply adversarial blueprints and tools when they maintain and reform social institutions. People transmit adversarial blueprints and tools to their children through parenting styles and actions. Some of these children grow up to be leaders. People trying to apply alternative blueprints find they don't work as well because: (1) they apply unsuitable tools, (2) they use suitable tools without proficiency, and (3) social structures are designed to support the adversarial blueprint only.

💡 Why this matters: This cycle explains why even well-intentioned efforts to introduce ADR often fail—the entire system is designed to support adversarial approaches.

🔑 Definition — Invisible Veil: The largely unseen cultural framework of adversarial beliefs and structures that shapes how individuals perceive and handle conflict.

📌 Example: Mukhtaran Mai is referenced as an example where a significant conflict was handled in a context far removed from Western adversarial approaches.

ADR in USA — Lawyers and the American Legal System

The American "adversary legal system" reflects individualistic, adversarial cultural values. The legal disputing tradition assumes that truth and justice are best obtained via the clash of legal adversaries. There is no empirical evidence that truth is best obtained in this manner—the authoritative pronouncements on this issue are judicial, not empirically grounded. Fuller and Randall argue that an adversary presentation prevents bias, but it does not follow that truth will win out, only that a more unbiased result will be obtained. Some opinion research of legal and business professionals suggests there is not a strong belief in the ability of the adversary system to produce truth. Lawyers are steeped in adversary tradition beginning with their legal education, developing a high degree of mastery over adversarial tools. This mastery is accompanied by a narrowing of beliefs about how best to handle interpersonal conflict.

Basic assumptions (beliefs) of the lawyer’s standard philosophical map

The lawyer's standard philosophical map, given by Len Riskin, has the following assumptions: a. Disputes are zero-sum. b. Disputes must be submitted to a third party, whose decision must be based on the application of law.

🔑 Definition — Lawyer's Standard Philosophical Map: A set of assumptions held by lawyers that disputes are zero-sum and must be submitted to a third party for a decision based on law.

The complaint Riskin makes is that while these beliefs will be true for some disputes, they are not as widely applicable as many lawyers assume. Because adversary processes have a number of damaging consequences, they should not be overused, and if adversary processes are assumed to be "best," they will be.

Legal System in USA

The legal system in the USA reflects the societal dominant adversarial milieu. The assumption is that justice is achievable only through a clash between adversaries or individuals.

Limitations of Lawyer’s Standard Philosophical Map

The limitations include: over-application of assumptions, and failure to see or appreciate other factors that can impact dispute resolution.

⭐ Key Takeaways

The most critical takeaway is that cultural blueprints for conflict, especially the adversarial and individualistic approach dominant in Western societies, are deeply embedded in social structures and institutions like the legal system, making them largely invisible to inhabitants but highly resistant to change. Bronfenbrenner's theory of social ecology explains how this blueprint is perpetuated across generations through a self-reinforcing cycle involving institutions, practice, and the "invisible veil" of cultural assumptions. The introduction of ADR as an innovation often fails not because it is inferior, but because of resistance, lack of proficiency, and the mismatch with existing adversarial structures. The lawyer's standard philosophical map, with its assumptions of zero-sum disputes and third-party legal decision-making, exemplifies this narrow perspective and its limitations. Understanding these preconceptions is essential for anyone seeking to effectively implement or study alternative dispute resolution methods.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. According to Bronfenbrenner's Theory of Social Ecology, what is the macrosystem, and how does it influence an individual's approach to conflict?
2. What are the three characteristics of the American approach to handling interpersonal conflict mentioned in the lecture?
3. Why does the lecture argue that the American adversary system may not be the best method for discovering truth in legal disputes?
4. What are the four reasons given for why strategies of change, such as introducing ADR, fail?
5. What are the two core assumptions of the lawyer's standard philosophical map as defined by Len Riskin, and what is the main criticism of this map?

📘 Lecture 6 — Conflict Diagnosis

📖 Overview: This lecture introduces the concept of conflict diagnosis as a structured process for understanding and responding to interpersonal conflicts. It explores how different perspectives (time, person, issues) affect conflict evaluation, outlines ten specific steps for diagnosing conflicts, and explains the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) movement, including its efficiency and radical perspectives.

🗂️ Topics Covered

The lecture covers conflict diagnosis as a framework for understanding interpersonal conflicts, including its definition and importance. It examines various perspectives on conflict handling (time, person, and issues) and identifies who benefits from conflict diagnosis (conflict gamers, conflict phobics, and conflict professionals). The lecture details ten steps in conflict diagnosis, from mapping the conflict to considering diversity issues. Finally, it discusses the ADR movement, comparing efficiency and radical perspectives on ADR and addressing quality concerns.

📝 Lecture Summary

Introduction

Conflict is everywhere and part of everyday life. Some periods of conflict provoke periods of great creativity. Competition is a form of conflict that helps individuals, groups, communities, societies, and countries to outpace others, resulting in excellence. Conflict may be constructive as well as destructive.

Conflict Diagnosis

Conflict diagnosis is a structured process for understanding and responding to interpersonal conflicts, disputes, and transactions. Conflict diagnosis provides a rigorous and clear framework for understanding and appreciating the multiple facets of any conflict. It also serves as a clear guide for the development of strategies for addressing conflict, including the selection of dispute resolution processes and providers. In a sense, conflict diagnosis provides the basis for designing methods of producing maximally good conflict in any conflict situation. Conflict resolution poses the most pain and the least gain when the parties are able to cooperate rather than having an adversarial approach.

Perspectives on the Handling of Interpersonal Conflict

An evaluation of interpersonal conflict depends on how it is handled. Conflict diagnosis allows the user to choose the best blueprint and the best tools to handle a conflict well. Conflict can have positive and negative consequences. Perspective is critical in discussing positive and negative consequences of interpersonal conflict.

a. Time perspective

• Short-term
• Intermediate-term
• Long-term

b. Person perspective

• Individual-disputant
• Joint-disputant
• Systemic
• Institution or society-wide

c. Issues perspective

• Process versus outcome
• Narrow versus broad focus
• Monetary or economic versus non-monetary, tangible or intangible
• Prospective versus retrospective

Who Needs to Know About Conflict Diagnosis?

Everyone can benefit from understanding conflict diagnosis. Legal and dispute professionals, such as lawyers, paralegals, professional negotiators, and others involved in dispute resolution, need to know the principles of conflict diagnosis so that they can do their job intelligently.

I. Conflict gamers and conflict phobics Conflict gamers love interpersonal conflict and feel the most alive when up to their necks in it. They don’t seem to need to prepare for a negotiation—their innate personality and temperament alone seem to be preparation enough. They jump at the chance for a rumble. In a negotiation, they seem utterly fearless. They are always ready to inflict punishment on their adversaries. After litigation is over, win or lose, over drinks or lunch conflict gamers express what a profound pleasure it all was, what a rush, and how it resembled the happy days they once spent in high school.

On the other hand, for a conflict phobic, the conflict diagnosis has many important advantages to offer. It will give clear guidance when conflict arises. It will help the conflict phobic to understand what to do when he/she feels unprepared and doesn’t know how to prepare.

II. Conflict professionals Conflict diagnosis is also for conflict professionals and professionals-in-training seeking to enrich their understanding of their field. For example, for a lawyer, a judge, a paralegal, etc., the course will help a lot in diagnosing conflict and applying ADR techniques for conflict management. Applying these techniques to conflicts enables conflict professionals to find the magic keys to unlocking their clients’ potential power to settle their differences.

Why Conduct Conflict Diagnosis?

Conflict diagnosis empowers and calms “conflict phobics.” It provides additional options for “conflict gamers.” It allows better choice of dispute resolution processes.

Steps in Conflict Diagnosis

1. Describe/map the conflict — Map out the conflict, identifying the roles of the participants.
2. Identify sources — Identify the sources and the causes of the conflict.
3. Analyze interests — Identify each participant’s aspirations, positions, interests, principles and values, and basic needs, and consider how they interrelate logically. Identify any linked conflicts and consider how the conflicts affect one another.
4. Characterize the conflict — Characterize the conflict as cooperative, competitive, or in between. If a cooperative conflict, identify attributes of the situation that could cause it to become competitive.
5. Consider trust — Analyze the kinds and level of trust present in the relationship between the disputant and other participants in the conflict.
6. Identify impediments to settlement — Identify any impediments to cooperative settlement.
7. Address negotiation styles and preferences — Assess the negotiation styles of the participants in the conflict, consider how these styles have an impact on the conflict, and if possible develop plans for encouraging cooperation and collaboration among the participants.
8. Consider power — Analyze each participant’s power. Analyze the sources of power, the ways in which each participant could exercise each source of power, the likely impact of its exercise, and ways that this source of power could be increased.
9. Identify/maximize the Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) — Develop a list of alternatives to a negotiated agreement, including the best alternative to a negotiated agreement, or BATNA. If you are a disputant, agent, or an advocate, develop plans for clarifying these alternatives and improving them.
10. Consider diversity issues — Choose a dispute resolution process, or a series of processes, appropriate to the conflict diagnosis. Select practitioners best able to meet your goals in the processes. If necessary, negotiate the dispute resolution selection processes with other conflict participants.

📐 Step 9 Formula: BATNA = Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement → The best available option if negotiation fails; used as leverage and a fallback position in negotiations.

Using Conflict Diagnosis Ideas to Understand the ADR Movement

ADR as Movement (in USA and in India) Some forms of ADR, such as religion-based or community-based mediation and commercial arbitration, have been around for centuries. In the USA, mediation and other forms of ADR have been used for legal disputes since about 1970 and became mainstream in the late 1980s and 1990s.

Efficiency and radical perspectives on ADR

Efficiency perspective In this root of the ADR tree, ADR is seen primarily through the prism of efficiency. ADR is useful for cutting costs, speeding settlements, and avoiding overburdening the courts. From this perspective, the type of ADR used is less important than the availability and use of ADR in any form.

Radical perspective The radical wing of ADR takes a very different perspective. ADR is useful for improving the resolution of conflicts, allocating resources among disputants, improving disputant relationships, and reforming overall cultural attitudes about conflict resolution.

Prevalence of efficiency perspective Economic forces tend to support ADR to save time, money, and court resources. The efficiency wing has been more influential, and because this wing cares less about the form of ADR used, certain looseness with ADR terminology is rampant. Traditional culture has influenced the development of language about ADR. Efficiency of ADR is important. ADR is controlled by the invisible veil, structure, or wisdom. Conclusions about ADR tend to be colored by the invisible veil or wisdom.

Radical-wing Concerns Differences (even small ones) among ADR processes matter greatly in terms of quality of the process (so understanding these differences matters greatly). A lack of rigor in defining, identifying, and understanding distinctions in ADR processes has led to marketplace confusion. Individual users of dispute resolution processes and providers can become better-informed consumers using conflict diagnosis. Society as a whole is not benefiting from the full panoply of options for dispute resolution. Use of non-adversarial ADR can lead to positive macro-system changes and should be encouraged.

Quality of ADR Though saving time and money are important goals, if the process is flawed, long-term efficiency is lost, and so the quality of dispute resolution process and outcome must be considered. There is little evidence that this longer-term assessment of long-term efficiency and effectiveness is taking place. Assessments of the quality of ADR are confounded by the lack of empirical research to adequately discriminate among forms of ADR. Conflict diagnosis ideas will also help researchers and policy makers to design better studies and to interpret studies more effectively.

The ADR Revolution

• “Efficiency wing” adopts ADR to save time and money, divert cases out of litigation.
• “Radical wing” adopts ADR to attain better conflict resolution.

💡 Why this matters: Understanding the tension between efficiency and quality in ADR helps practitioners choose appropriate dispute resolution processes and avoid sacrificing long-term effectiveness for short-term savings.

⭐ Key Takeaways

The most critical concepts from this lecture are the ten-step conflict diagnosis process, which provides a systematic framework for analyzing any interpersonal conflict, from mapping participants to considering diversity issues. Understanding the three perspectives (time, person, and issues) helps evaluate whether conflict consequences are positive or negative. The distinction between conflict gamers and conflict phobics explains different natural orientations to conflict and how diagnosis helps both types. The BATNA concept is essential for negotiation leverage and fallback planning. Finally, the contrast between the efficiency and radical perspectives on ADR highlights the ongoing debate between saving time/money versus achieving fundamentally better conflict resolution outcomes.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. What are the ten steps in conflict diagnosis, and why is each important?
2. How do the time, person, and issues perspectives affect the evaluation of interpersonal conflict?
3. What is the difference between a conflict gamer and a conflict phobic?
4. What does BATNA stand for, and how is it used in conflict diagnosis?
5. How do the efficiency perspective and radical perspective differ in their views on ADR?

📘 Lecture 7 — Recurrent Themes in Conflict Diagnosis I

📖 Overview: This lecture explores the fundamental concepts of interpersonal conflict diagnosis, emphasizing that conflict is often not what it seems. It introduces the "Seven Steps of Conflict Diagnosis" as a cognitive framework for understanding how disputants perceive, interpret, and respond to conflict, highlighting the subjective nature of perception and the many opportunities for error in social interactions.

🗂️ Topics Covered

This lecture covers the nature of interpersonal conflict as a complex, multifaceted phenomenon often hidden beneath the surface, likened to an iceberg, funny glasses, or a tornado. It discusses how disputants use each other's conduct to diagnose conflict, leading to perceptual errors. The core of the lecture is the detailed breakdown of the Seven Steps of Conflict Diagnosis, from the initial social stimulus to the creation of a new stimulus through action, explaining each step's potential for error.

📝 Lecture Summary

Understanding and diagnosing interpersonal conflict

Interpersonal conflict exists when there is incompatibility of goals and occurs in every type of relationship. What we think we see is often not what really goes on, and what the other disputant is responding to is often not what we think. Conflict is not necessarily negative; a relationship without visible conflict may have hidden conflicts that are more harmful. Hostility and resentment can destroy relationships, whereas conflict can be productive if taken positively.

Sources of conflict are usually hidden

Opposing needs, ideas, goals, and interests may be the sources of conflict. Conflicts may be real and/or perceived. Conflict is a very complex and multifaceted phenomenon—most of the time, it is not what we see or perceive, but something else and somewhere else. Perception is often more important than reality, as our perceptions affect most of our behavior and attitude. 💡 Why this matters: Diagnosing conflict requires understanding the predisposition of the issue, not just the surface-level behavior.

Conflict is never quite what it seems

Interpersonal conflict is like an iceberg (most of it is hidden), funny glasses (distorting perception), and a tornado (disorienting and disturbing). Disputants use one another's conduct to diagnose conflict, which leads to ever-widening errors of perception and judgment.

The Seven Steps of Social Behavior

Conflict is based on subjectivity and perception. Many opportunities for error exist in all social interactions. Experience is greatly subjective, hence interpersonal conflict is subjective. Perceptual distortions are very important for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), as negotiation processes address perception and bring people closer in their views.

Seven Steps of Conflict Diagnosis

1. Social Stimulus

A stimulus is something in one's environment that stimulates a reaction. A social stimulus is a stimulus emanating from another individual or from the social setting or situation. Social stimuli can be verbal, nonverbal (e.g., body language), or contextual (e.g., where and when behavior took place).

2. Disputant receives the social stimulus with his or her senses

Receiving the stimulus is only the first part of perception—the other essential part is interpretation. Stimulus reception can be prone to error.

3. Disputant interprets what he or she has seen/heard/sensed

This is the assigning of meaning to a received stimulus by the observer. This second half of perception often goes unrecognized—perception is often misunderstood as an "objective" rendering of a real-world event, but in reality, it can be very subjective. "Error" occurs during interpretation because virtually every received stimulus has ambiguous components. During interpersonal conflict, disputants will tend to use one another's behavior to make guesses about motivations and next moves. The stress of conflict worsens the tendency to make errors.

Specific sources of interpretational error include: a. Actor did not intend his or her actions. b. Use of a heuristic—mental shortcuts that facilitate the interpretational phase of perception. c. Negative heuristics that tend to be associated with escalated conflict. d. Self-fulfilling-prophecy behavioral responses to application of a heuristic. e. Application of heuristics is associated with high levels of stress and reduced mental and emotional resources. f. Influenced by individual contextual factors and motivational factors.

🔑 Definition — Heuristic: mental shortcuts that facilitate the interpretational phase of perception.

4. Disputant generates options for responding

Option generation will be more or less abbreviated or detailed, depending on the importance of the situation, the stress and arousal level of the observer, and the cognitive resources of the observer.

5. Disputant weighs the options

The observer chooses an action by weighing the costs and benefits of each option. Factors that influence weights given to options include: i. Factors that influence availability of mental resources (complexity, fatigue, emotional arousal). ii. Salience of particular issues in the present context. iii. Blueprints about interpersonal conflict and how it should be resolved. iv. Personal values assigned to the likely possible outcomes. v. The weighing of options is often wholly or partially unconscious.

6. Disputant chooses an action

A stable source of choice is perceived self-efficacy, whereas transient sources include time limitations, cognitive overload, and attention-robbing factors.

🔑 Definition — Perceived self-efficacy: a stable source that influences the action a disputant chooses.

7. Disputant acts, creating a new social stimulus

The action that occurs may not be the one intended due to deficiencies in actual self-efficacy (proficiency). Proficiency is not a stable trait and is impaired by stress. Even proficiently executed tactics sometimes fail due to:

1. Errors in interpretation or judgment.
2. Mistaken beliefs about the effectiveness of various blueprints.
3. Changes in the situation.
4. Chance—the tactic may carry a known risk.
5. Actions become social stimuli for the next cycle.

💡 Why this matters: This step shows that even with good intentions, actions can fail, creating new stimuli that continue the conflict cycle.

⭐ Key Takeaways

Students must remember that interpersonal conflict is a subjective, perceptual phenomenon, not an objective reality. The "Seven Steps of Conflict Diagnosis" provide a systematic framework for understanding how disputants perceive, interpret, and respond to conflict, with potential for error at every step. Perception has two parts—receiving and interpreting—and interpretation is where most errors occur, especially through the use of heuristics under stress. Conflict is often hidden (like an iceberg), and what appears on the surface may not reflect the true sources of disagreement. Finally, every action in conflict creates a new social stimulus, making conflict a dynamic, cyclical process.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. What are the three metaphors used to describe interpersonal conflict, and what does each represent?
2. What are the two essential parts of perception, and which one is more prone to error during conflict?
3. List the Seven Steps of Conflict Diagnosis in order.
4. What is a heuristic, and why does its use increase during conflict?
5. Why can an action taken by a disputant fail even if it is executed proficiently?

📘 Lecture 8 — Recurrent Themes in Conflict Diagnosis II

📖 Overview: This lecture continues the exploration of conflict diagnosis by applying the seven steps of social behavior to understand ten recurrent themes in conflict. It explains why individuals behave as they do during conflicts, how perceptions are formed, and why conflicts often persist or escalate. Understanding these themes is critical for anyone managing or intervening in interpersonal disputes.

🗂️ Topics Covered

This lecture covers ten themes of conflict diagnosis: behavior makes sense to the actor, the subjective interpretation of reality, using conflict to form perceptions of others' motives, unconscious perceptual biases, how perceptual biases feed conflict, the pleasure principle, subjectivity of expectations about results, complexity and inconsistency of motivation, failure to attain intended goals, and the self-fulfilling prophecy of conflict.

📝 Lecture Summary

Recurrent Themes in Conflict Diagnosis II

This lecture continues from the previous one, applying the seven steps of social behavior to understand the ten themes of conflict diagnosis. These themes help explain why conflicts develop and persist the way they do.

Theme 1. Behavior makes sense to actor

An individual will behave in ways that make sense to him or her. It is of no utility to write off someone’s behavior as motivated by evil intent. Every action, even if destructive or confusing to an outsider, is logical from the actor's perspective based on their understanding of the situation.

🔑 Definition — Behavior makes sense to actor: An individual will always behave in ways that are rational and logical to them, given their perception of the situation.

💡 Why this matters: This principle prevents demonizing the other party and encourages exploring the reasoning behind their actions rather than dismissing them as irrational or evil.

Theme 2. Interpretation of reality is subjective

Each individual’s interpretation of reality is subjective. There is no single objective reality in conflict; every party sees the situation through their own unique lens shaped by their experiences, beliefs, and values.

🔑 Definition — Subjective interpretation of reality: No two people perceive the same event identically; each person filters reality through their own mental framework.

Theme 3. Conflict to Form Perception

Conflict participants use the conflict itself to make judgments about the motives of the other conflict participants. Mind reading is impossible, and the statements of others about their motives are usually not trusted. People infer intentions from observable behavior during the conflict.

🔑 Definition — Conflict to form perception: During conflict, people judge others' motives based on their observable actions rather than trusting their verbal statements about intentions.

Theme 4. Perceptual Biases are Unconscious

The influence of mental processes on the perception of reality in interpersonal conflict is largely unconscious and automatic. Because these processes are unconscious and automatic, errors of perception are not usually noted. The faulty perceptions that arise during conflicts are usually thought as "obvious" or self-evident truths.

🔑 Definition — Perceptual biases: Unconscious and automatic mental processes that distort how we perceive reality during conflict, and these distortions are typically unnoticed by the perceiver.

Theme 5. Perceptual Biases Feed Conflict

Expect interpersonal conflict to involve misperception. Because the perceptual frames of reference of disputants usually differ, they usually attribute the wrong motives to each other as they try to explain the behavior they are seeing using the wrong frame of reference. Emotional reactions to misunderstood actions feed the conflict. Defensive responses to misunderstood actions further confirm to the observer the negative perceptions.

🔑 Definition — Perceptual frames of reference: The unique mental lens through which each person interprets events; when these differ between disputants, they misinterpret each other's motives.

💡 Why this matters: This creates a vicious cycle: misunderstanding leads to emotional reactions, which lead to defensive behavior, which confirms the original negative perception.

Theme 6. The Pleasure Principle

Each individual is motivated to improve his or her basic well-being, happiness, comfort, and pleasure and to reduce discomfort, pain, and harm to the self. This is an expression of the basic motivating force assumed by behaviorists and social learning theorists to underlie human and animal behavioral responses.

🔑 Definition — Pleasure principle: The fundamental human motivation to seek pleasure and avoid pain, which drives all behavioral responses in conflict.

Theme 7. Subjectivity of Expectations about Results

Expectations held by individuals, about the results that their behavior will produce, are subjective. People predict outcomes based on their personal beliefs, past experiences, and biases, not on objective probabilities.

🔑 Definition — Subjectivity of expectations: Each person's predictions about what their actions will achieve are colored by their subjective perspective, not objective reality.

Theme 8. Complexity and Inconsistency of Motivation

Individual choices in a conflict are the result of reconciling among many diverse and contradictory motivations. Motivation usually appears simpler to an observer than it does to the one taking action. Motivation is often unconscious to the actor. This can create a situation in which hidden motives unduly influence an actor because he or she is unaware of their existence and influence. It also can create a situation in which an actor seems to be lying, but in fact lacks insight into his or her own behavior. Interpersonal conflict creates predictable motivations, such as the desire to "beat" the other disputant.

🔑 Definition — Complexity and inconsistency of motivation: Human motivation in conflict involves multiple, often contradictory, conscious and unconscious drivers that are not easily understood even by the actor themselves.

Theme 9. Intended goals are not usually achieved

Individuals in a conflict frequently don’t attain their intended goals. Reasons for failure: i. Misinterpretation of the situation ii. Application of inappropriate conflict blueprint iii. Application of unhelpful strategies for resolving conflict iv. Failure to proficiently execute a strategy v. Chance: the strategy had a known risk of failure

🔑 Definition — Failure to attain goals: Despite best intentions, people in conflict often fail to achieve what they set out to accomplish due to multiple predictable reasons.

Theme 10. Self-fulfilling prophecy

The course of a conflict tends to be self-fulfilling. The dynamics of interpersonal conflict typically cause it to evolve into what the disputants think it is. Some ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) practitioners use this feature of conflict, subtly manipulating conflict participants into a frame of mind conducive to resolution. A more constructive approach to handling the conflict often follows.

🔑 Definition — Self-fulfilling prophecy: The tendency for conflict to evolve exactly as disputants expect it to, because their expectations shape their behavior and perceptions.

💡 Why this matters: This principle can be used positively: if disputants can be guided to expect resolution, the conflict itself is more likely to move toward constructive outcomes.

⭐ Key Takeaways

The ten themes reveal that conflict behavior is always logical to the actor, perception is subjective and largely unconscious, and misperceptions feed and sustain conflict. People are motivated by the pleasure principle but their motivations are complex, contradictory, and often hidden from themselves. Despite these complexities, disputants rarely achieve their intended goals due to misinterpretation, inappropriate strategies, or poor execution. Critically, conflicts tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies, which means that changing disputants' expectations can alter the course of the conflict. Understanding these themes is essential for effective diagnosis and intervention in any interpersonal dispute.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. According to Theme 1, why is it unhelpful to write off someone's conflict behavior as motivated by evil intent?
2. What does "perceptual frames of reference" mean, and how do differing frames of reference lead to misattribution of motives (Theme 5)?
3. List at least four reasons why individuals in conflict frequently fail to attain their intended goals (Theme 9).
4. What is the "pleasure principle" and how does it relate to behavioral responses in conflict?
5. How can the self-fulfilling prophecy feature of conflict (Theme 10) be used constructively by Alternative Dispute Resolution practitioners?

📘 Lecture 9 — DESCRIBING THE CONFLICT I

📖 Overview: This lecture focuses on the process of accurately describing interpersonal conflicts before attempting resolution. It introduces the concept of building a conflict map (sociogram) to visually represent the parties, their relationships, and the underlying issues, emphasizing that roles can shift based on which specific conflict is being analyzed.

🗂️ Topics Covered

The lecture covers the critical importance of correctly identifying interpersonal versus intrapersonal conflict and then systematically mapping the conflict. It details the purposes of a conflict map or sociogram, explains the various participant roles including disputants, advocates, agents, constituents, and neutrals, and illustrates these concepts with a sample divorce and custody dispute scenario involving multiple parties.

📝 Lecture Summary

Description of Conflict

Make sure that we understand the roles of the parties to a conflict. Clarify that often there are several interpersonal conflicts hidden in a situation, and that the participant role assignments may change if the focus of the dispute is changed. It is essential to tease out underlying and hidden interpersonal conflicts, as this will help uncover paths to constructive resolution of the conflict.

Identifying Interpersonal Conflict

First, analyze the situation carefully to ensure it really is “interpersonal” and not an “inner conflict” (intrapersonal). Identify the disputants, and the divergent goals and interests that create the interpersonal conflict. The next step is to start diagramming or mapping the conflict.

Purposes of the conflict map or “sociogram”

When it is decided that a conflict is interpersonal conflict not intrapersonal conflict, then we map out the conflict. The purposes of a map or sociogram are:

1. It clarifies what the conflicts are among the disputants.
2. It helps us analyze disputants’ interests.
3. It reveals interests of non-disputants that may impede resolution or provide ways to creative strategies to resolve the conflict.
4. It clarifies the points on which more information is needed.

Place symbols on the sociogram that represent the disputants and briefly write the divergent goals of the principal disputant. Evaluate the situation, conduct research where necessary, to identify agents, advocates, and constituents, and place them on the sociogram as well. Explain the sociogram with side conflicts that add to the complexity of the situation. Be prepared to edit the sociogram as and when additional information becomes available.

Keep in Mind the complexity

Many conflict situations will have more than one interpersonal conflict. You must ask: Who are the main disputants, agents, advocates, constituents, or neutrals, if any? This explanation will depend on the conflict that is being focused. Often, we know which conflict to focus on. Sometimes, we have to decide systematically which conflict is to be focused, as there are usually multiple conflicts. Whether to include some individuals with loose connections to the conflict as constituents will depend on our goals. It will be good to include all conflicts.

Parties to an Interpersonal Conflict

The lecture provides a diagram of the parties to an interpersonal conflict, showing the relationships between Disputant, Advocate, Agent, Constituent, and Neutral parties. Lines of communication and lines of relationship connect the parties, with the conflict (incompatible goals) placed between the two main disputants.

🔑 Definition — Sociogram/Conflict Map: A visual tool representing the parties in a conflict, their relationships, and the nature of their disagreement to help analyze the situation. 📐 Formula: The structure involves Disputants (those directly in conflict) at the center, connected by Lines of Communication and Lines of Relationship to Advocates (speak on behalf of a party), Agents (act on behalf of a party), Constituents (have an interest or stake), and Neutrals (uninvolved third parties).

Sample Interpersonal Conflict

The lecture uses the example of Saleem and Naila, who are in the process of divorcing and disagree over the custody of their two children.

• Lawyer Babar represents Saleem and Salma represents Naila.
• The children are upset with each other, blaming each other for the impending divorce between their parents.
• Babar’s mother cannot decide about her possible role to resolve their dispute by providing child care, if given custody of children to the father.
• Other constituents include Ayesha (secretary), Babar’s mother, the kids, and a Manager, Fellow Workers, a Dear Friend, a Supervisor, a Sick Father, and the father’s Mother.

This scenario creates a Conflict Map where the central conflict is the "Children custody dispute" between Saleem and Naila. Each disputant has an advocate (Babar for Saleem, Salma for Naila). The map also shows agents, constituents (like the kids, who are also in conflict with each other), and neutrals.

📌 Example: In the Saleem and Naila conflict, the advocate for Saleem is Babar (the lawyer). While Babar is an advocate for the custody dispute, he might be a constituent or have his own interests in a different conflict, such as his billing dispute with Saleem. The diagram shows how the kids are both constituents and have their own interpersonal conflict with each other.

Important Point

Roles of participants change, depending on which interpersonal conflict is given focus. A person who is an advocate in one conflict (e.g., the lawyer for the custody dispute) could be a disputant in a different conflict (e.g., a fee dispute with the client).

💡 Why this matters: Understanding that roles are fluid prevents you from making assumptions about a person's position in a complex situation. You must clearly define which interpersonal conflict you are focusing on before assigning roles in your conflict map.

⭐ Key Takeaways

1. Always distinguish between an intrapersonal (inner) and interpersonal conflict before mapping.
2. A conflict map (sociogram) is a powerful tool to visualize the dispute, clarify the roles of disputants, advocates, agents, constituents, and neutrals, and reveal the interests of all parties.
3. The primary purposes of a sociogram are to clarify the specific conflicts, analyze disputant interests, reveal non-disputant influences, and identify information gaps.
4. A single situation often contains multiple, overlapping interpersonal conflicts. The participant roles (e.g., advocate vs. disputant) for any individual will change depending on which specific conflict you are mapping.
5. The sociogram is a dynamic tool that should be edited and updated as new information about the situation becomes available.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. What is the most critical first step to take before drawing a conflict map for a situation?
2. List the four specific purposes of creating a conflict map (sociogram).
3. In the lecture's sample conflict, what is the primary interpersonal conflict under focus, who are the two main disputants, and who is the advocate for each?
4. Explain the difference between an advocate and an agent in the context of a conflict map.
5. Why is it important to remember that "roles of participants change" when analyzing a complex conflict situation?

📘 Lecture 10 — Describing the Conflict II

📖 Overview: This lecture continues the process of conflict diagnosis by focusing on the critical first step: describing the conflict. It explains how to create a conflict map or sociogram to visualize relationships, identify the true focus of a dispute, and distinguish between interpersonal and intrapersonal conflicts, which is essential for effective resolution.

🗂️ Topics Covered

The lecture covers the first step of conflict diagnosis—describing the conflict—and the importance of putting the situation into words to clarify it. It introduces the sociogram as a mapping tool, explains how to identify the true focus of a conflict by uncovering hidden disputes, and teaches how to differentiate between interpersonal (between people) and intrapersonal (internal to one person) conflicts, using real-world examples like a father-son career disagreement and a corporate sale of a product.

📝 Lecture Summary

Quotation

The lecture opens with two quotations. Aristotle states, “Well begun is half done,” emphasizing that a proper start to conflict diagnosis is crucial. Hilaire Belloc adds, “All men have an instinct for conflict: at least, all healthy men,” highlighting that conflict is a natural part of healthy human relationships. The lecture notes that concepts like conflict, mistrust, insecurity, individualism, and competition depict relationships, and understanding their anatomy can improve personal, work, and social life.

Step 1 for Conflict Diagnosis

The first step towards conflict diagnosis is the description of conflict. Putting the situation or conflict into words helps clarify it in your mind. Developing a conflict map or sociogram helps understand the nature of conflict. A sociogram is defined as a diagram or chart that shows individuals and their relationships to one another.

💡 Why this matters: Creating a visual map of the conflict forces you to systematically think about all parties involved, their connections, and the underlying issues, rather than relying on a vague or emotional understanding.

🔑 Definition — Sociogram: A diagram or chart that shows individuals and their relationships to one another.

📌 Example: To map a conflict between two coworkers A and B and their manager C, draw three circles (A, B, C). Draw a solid line between A and B to show a direct conflict, a dotted line from A to C to show a good relationship, and a jagged line from B to C to show a tense relationship. This visual instantly reveals the relational dynamics.

Focus of conflict

When focusing on a dispute, it is useful to identify other conflicts involved in the dispute. Usually several interpersonal conflicts are involved but they are hidden. The focus on one conflict in a dispute can change the total situation; and ultimately the resolution of the conflict will also change significantly. The lecture advises: write down or map your conflict and sleep over it for about at least 12 hours. This pause helps clarify hidden conflicts that might not be immediately obvious.

💡 Why this matters: The surface conflict may not be the real problem. By sleeping on it, you allow your subconscious to process hidden issues, preventing you from solving the wrong problem.

🔑 Definition — Hidden conflicts: Additional interpersonal conflicts that exist within a dispute but are not immediately obvious or expressed.

📌 Example: In a team dispute over budget allocation, the surface conflict is about money. Hidden conflicts might include a rivalry between two department heads, a lack of trust in finance, or resentment from a past decision. Focusing only on the budget without addressing these hidden conflicts will lead to an incomplete resolution.

Conflict: interpersonal or intrapersonal

It is essential to understand the nature of conflict: is it interpersonal or intrapersonal? An interpersonal conflict occurs between two or more people. An intrapersonal conflict occurs within a single person's mind, often involving a dilemma or internal struggle.

📌 Example (Father and Son): A son wants to pursue a career based on his understanding of his own limitations, while his father wants a high-profile career for his son. Both want a good career for the boy, so there is no actual interpersonal conflict (they share the same goal). The conflict is actually intrapersonal—it is within the person of the boy. He misinterprets his father's feelings and mistakenly thinks there is a conflict between him and his father. The real conflict is his internal struggle between his own perceived limitations and his father's expectations.

🔑 Definition — Interpersonal conflict: A conflict that occurs between two or more individuals or groups. 🔑 Definition — Intrapersonal conflict: A conflict that occurs within a single person, often involving conflicting thoughts, feelings, or values.

Sale of a product as conflict

This section presents an example from the textbook: Company S wants to sell its product (a microchip) to Company B (a mobile phone manufacturer). Although this is a Western example, it can apply to companies in Pakistan. The lecture notes that as an employee of a company, you may face such a situation. This example illustrates that a simple business transaction can be viewed as a conflict where each party has competing interests (e.g., price, quality, delivery terms). Understanding this dynamic helps negotiators prepare better.

📌 Example: Company S (chip maker) and Company B (mobile phone maker). Company S wants to sell its chip at a high price with a large order. Company B wants a low price with flexible terms. This creates a negotiation conflict. A conflict map would show S and B as two nodes with a line representing the negotiation. Hidden conflicts might include Company B's internal struggle between engineering (who wants the best chip) and finance (who wants the lowest cost), or Company S's internal pressure to meet quarterly sales targets.

⭐ Key Takeaways

The most critical point from this lecture is that the first step in conflict management is comprehensive description, achieved through creating a conflict map or sociogram to visualize all parties and their relationships. You must learn to identify the focus of conflict, which often includes hidden, underlying disputes that change the entire situation if addressed. Crucially, you must distinguish between interpersonal conflict (between people) and intrapersonal conflict (within a person), as misdiagnosing one for the other can lead to failed resolution. The simple act of writing down or mapping a conflict and waiting 12 hours can reveal these hidden layers. Finally, even routine business transactions like a product sale can be framed as a conflict requiring negotiation skills, and this understanding is applicable in both Western and local (e.g., Pakistani) contexts.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. What is a sociogram, and why is it useful in the first step of conflict diagnosis?
2. Explain the concept of "hidden conflicts" and give an example from a workplace dispute.
3. Using the father-son career example, describe the difference between interpersonal and intrapersonal conflict.
4. Why does the lecture recommend "sleeping on" your description of a conflict for at least 12 hours?
5. How can a simple product sale between two companies (like Company S and Company B) be considered a conflict?

📘 Lecture 11 — Sources and Causes of Conflict I

📖 Overview: This lecture explores the underlying reasons why conflicts emerge, emphasizing that the obvious cause is rarely the only or most important one. Understanding the multiple, often hidden sources of conflict is crucial for effective conflict mapping and resolution. The lecture introduces 12 main sources of conflict, providing explanations, examples, and useful approaches for each.

🗂️ Topics Covered

The lecture begins by defining the source of conflict and explaining why understanding it matters, then introduces the concept of multiple sources operating simultaneously. It presents 12 main sources of conflict in detail: control over resources, data-type conflicts (over facts or law), preferences and nuisances, communication difficulties, differences in conflict orientation, values conflicts, threats to self-concept and world view, structural and interpersonal power issues, identity, displaced and misattributed conflict, and differing attributions of causation. Each source is explained with a definition, example, and suggested approach for resolution.

📝 Lecture Summary

Main objectives of this lecture

This lecture aims to teach that the obvious cause of an interpersonal conflict is seldom the only cause or even the most important one. Students will learn that sources of conflict are usually multiple and many of them are hidden, and there is a need to determine and understand many sources of conflict. The lecture covers 12 main sources of many conflicts.

Source of conflict

The source of an interpersonal conflict is the underlying reason for the emergence of conflict. Understanding and conceptually organizing the sources of conflict can greatly help improve the chances of resolving the conflict. Understanding human behavior can help reveal the motivations of individuals involved in the conflict. While interest analysis illuminates the motivations of individual conflict participants, the process of identifying the sources of conflict illuminates the features of the relationship among conflict participants that foster conflict.

Main Sources of Conflict

Following are the main sources of conflict:

1. Resources
2. Data-type or about facts or laws
3. Preferences and nuisances
4. Differing attributions of causation
5. Communication problems
6. Differences in conflict orientation
7. Structural or interpersonal power
8. Identity
9. Values
10. Displaced and misattributed

Multiple sources of conflict

It is vital to know that there are usually multiple sources of any given conflict. Leaving one or more sources of conflict may aggravate conflict. That is why you have to think through coolly and sleep over it. It will improve your understanding about the conflict.

Conflict between two partners

The lecture illustrates the concept of multiple sources with a diagram showing a conflict between Partner 1 (who does day-to-day work) and Partner 2 (who supplied the venture capital). The conflict appears to be about the distribution of revenues. At the tip of the iceberg, this appears to be a resource and data-type conflict (who's entitled to how much revenue?), but the hidden conflict involves threats to identity and self-concept.

Control over resources

Conflict type: Control over resources Explanation: Disputant's degree over control of valued items or struggle over ownership of scarce commodities Example: The dispute is between neighbours over property boundaries Useful approach: Many conflicts that appear at first glance to be resource conflicts can be resolved by understanding and dealing with deeper sources of conflict that may be operating (tactics aimed at expanding the pie).

Data-type conflicts: conflicts over facts

Conflict type: Data-type conflicts over facts Explanation: The conflict is over reality, either past or present Example: Two drivers disagree over who drifted into whose traffic lane Useful approach: Sometimes, a focus on satisfying the underlying interests of the disputants avoids the need to resolve the factual issue. If not, these types of conflicts can be resolved through fact finding, non-binding evaluation, or adjudication. Many disputes over facts mask other, deeper conflicts.

Data-type conflicts: conflicts over law

Conflict type: Data-type conflicts over law Explanation: The disagreement is over how the law impacts the relationship between the disputants Example: The disagreement is between divorcing spouses over the appropriate appraisal and allocation of property rights Useful approach: Ironically, litigation is probably the least desirable way to handle most of these kinds of conflicts, because they typically arise when the law is vague. Often, the best tactic is for the disputants to educate themselves about the law (to verify the degree of uncertainty), then to engage in principle negotiation aimed at developing solutions that accommodate mutual interests. Litigation should be used primarily when the legal conflict masks a dispute over social structure and interpersonal power imbalance.

Preferences and nuisances

Conflict type: Preferences and nuisances Explanation: One disputant's behaviour disturbs the other Example: Factory runoff pollutes the stream of a landowner who loves to fish Useful approach: These types of disputes are particularly amenable to creative problem solving that acknowledges and seeks to preserve the underlying interests of the disputant but rearranges the environment, modify people's schedules, and so on.

Communication difficulties

Conflict type: Communication difficulties Explanation: The meanings of language and behaviour may be misunderstood Example: Frequently, self-interested tactics on the part of one disputant are misunderstood by an opponent Useful approach: Approaches include becoming familiar with the other disputant and his or her cultural practices; using active listening; hiring a mediator, an agent, a consultant who shares the cultural background of the other disputant, or a translator.

Differences in conflict orientation

Conflict type: Differences in conflict orientation Explanation: There are differences in the basic approach to relationship. One disputant sees the relationship of the parties as mutually cooperative. The other disputant is basically competitive. Example: Not explicitly given, but suggested by the explanation Useful approach: It helps resolve the conflict if the disputants recognize the style differences to minimize communication difficulties that result from differences in conflict orientation. The cooperative disputant can refuse to negotiate unless the parties agree to use a set of objective principles to guide the negotiation. The cooperator may need to signal a willingness to fight hard if the other disputant fails to act cooperatively.

Values conflicts

Conflict type: Values Explanation: Conflicts are over personal beliefs and deeply held values Example: Ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan may have religious origins, which include values conflicts Useful approach: Sometimes, values conflicts can be resolved if the disputants can agree to disagree about the underlying values, as when a disputant agrees to go along with a settlement without admitting liability. Values conflicts are difficult to resolve peacefully if the values involved are central to the self-concepts or world views of the disputants or if coupled with many other sources of conflict, such as disputes over limited resources.

Threats to self-concept and world view

Conflict type: Threats to self-concept and world view Explanation: What disputant's viewpoint threatens the other disputant's central ideas about him- or herself or about how the world works Examples:

• In a medical malpractice case, the patient's allegations of negligence threaten the physician's self-concept as a competent professional
• An employee's allegation of racism on the part of a supervisor threatens the supervisor's self-concept as racially tolerant

Useful approach: As with values conflicts, occasionally these conflicts can be managed by having the disputants agree to disagree while implementing a solution that threatens neither disputant's self-concept or world view. It helps to use negotiation tactics that confirm and protect the dignity of each participant. Sometimes, these conflicts can be handled through the use of negotiating agents. Conflicts based on the negative stereotypes held by one social group about another social group are very difficult to resolve.

Structural and inter-personal power issues

Conflict type: Structural and inter-personal power issues Explanation: A disputant perceives an unjust balance of power and struggles to rectify it Example: School integration and affirmative action disputes are examples Useful approach: The more powerful disputant is generally unwilling to give up power and may honestly fail to see that a power imbalance exists. If this disputant is made aware of this imbalance, sometimes he or she can be convinced to give up power to preserve long-term social structure, avoid violence struggle, or make his or her own actions consistent with deeply held values (as when discriminatory laws are pointed out as being inconsistent with national values of equality and equal rights). Frequently, however, appeal to a more powerful authority (e.g., litigation) is the only method that produces lasting change.

Summary

Understanding the sources of conflict will make you go through the multiple sources of conflict. It has been noted that identifying all the sources of conflict is very important for mapping the conflict and then resolving the conflict. While mapping the conflict, try to keep in mind all the sources of the conflict.

⭐ Key Takeaways

The single most critical insight from this lecture is that conflicts rarely have a single cause—the visible disagreement (like a dispute over money or property) is often just the "tip of the iceberg," masking deeper, hidden sources such as threats to identity, values conflicts, or power imbalances. Students must memorize the 12 main sources of conflict and understand that effective conflict resolution requires identifying and addressing ALL sources, not just the most obvious one. For each source type, remember the specific useful approach: resource conflicts may require expanding the pie; data conflicts may need fact-finding or principle negotiation; values and identity conflicts may need "agree to disagree" strategies with dignity protection; power conflicts may require appeal to higher authority. The "conflict between two partners" example perfectly illustrates how a seemingly simple resource conflict can hide deeper identity threats. Finally, the lecture emphasizes that litigation is often the least desirable option for legal conflicts, useful primarily when the legal dispute masks a power imbalance.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. What does it mean that the "obvious cause" of an interpersonal conflict is the "tip of the iceberg"?
2. List at least 8 of the 12 main sources of conflict covered in this lecture.
3. Why is litigation described as "probably the least desirable way" to handle data-type conflicts over law?
4. What is the recommended approach for resolving conflicts involving "threats to self-concept and world view"?
5. In the "conflict between two partners" example, what is the visible source and what is the hidden source of the conflict?

📘 Lecture 12 — Sources and Causes of Conflict II

📖 Overview: This lecture continues the inventory of major sources of conflict, providing a detailed typology of conflict types. Understanding these sources is crucial for identifying the root cause of a dispute, which is the first step toward effective resolution. The lecture covers eight distinct conflict types, each with explanations, examples, and tailored approaches for resolution.

🗂️ Topics Covered

The lecture presents a comprehensive table of conflict types, including preferences and nuisances, communication difficulties, differences in conflict orientation, values conflicts, threats to self-concept and world view, structural and interpersonal power issues, differing attributions of causation, displaced conflict, and misattributed conflict. Each type is defined with an example and a recommended useful approach for management.

📝 Lecture Summary

Continuing Inventory of Major Sources of Conflict

The lecture emphasizes that knowing the sources of conflict can help resolve conflicts more easily and successfully. The inventory continues from the previous lecture.

Preferences and Nuisances

This conflict type arises when one disputant's behavior disturbs the other. Example: Factory runoff pollutes the stream of a landowner who loves to fish. The useful approach involves creative problem solving that acknowledges and seeks to preserve the underlying interests of the disputants but rearranges the environment, modifies people’s schedules, and so on.

🔑 Definition — Preferences and Nuisances: A conflict type where one disputant’s behavior disturbs the other. 📌 Example: Factory runoff pollutes a fishing landowner's stream. Steps: Acknowledge both parties' interests (landowner wants clean water for fishing; factory needs to operate), then creatively rearrange the environment (e.g., install filtration) or modify schedules.

Communication Difficulties

This conflict type occurs when the meanings of language and behavior may be misunderstood. Example: Self-interested tactics on the part of one disputant are misunderstood by an opponent. Useful approaches include becoming familiar with the other disputant and their cultural practices, using active listening, and hiring a mediator, an agent, a consultant who shares the cultural background of the other disputant, or a translator.

🔑 Definition — Communication Difficulties: A conflict type where the meanings of language and behavior may be misunderstood. 📌 Example: Self-interested tactics are misunderstood by an opponent. Steps: Use active listening, hire a mediator, or become familiar with the other party's cultural practices.

Differences in Conflict Orientation

This conflict type arises from differences in the basic approach to relationship: one disputant sees the relationship as mutually cooperative, while the other is basically competitive. Useful approaches include: recognizing the style differences to minimize communication difficulties; having the cooperative disputant refuse to negotiate unless the parties agree to use a set of objective principles; and signaling a willingness to fight hard if the other disputant fails to act cooperatively.

🔑 Definition — Differences in Conflict Orientation: A conflict type where there are differences in the basic approach to relationship, such as one party being cooperative and the other competitive. 📌 Example: A cooperative partner negotiates with a competitive partner. Steps: Recognize style differences; refuse to negotiate without objective principles; signal willingness to fight hard if needed.

Values

Conflicts over personal beliefs and deeply held values. Example: Ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan may have religious origins. Sometimes resolvable if disputants agree to disagree, as when a disputant agrees to a settlement without admitting liability. Values conflicts are difficult to resolve peacefully if the values involved are central to self-concepts or world views, or if coupled with other sources like disputes over limited resources.

🔑 Definition — Values Conflicts: Conflicts over personal beliefs and deeply held values. 📌 Example: Religious conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Steps: Agree to disagree on underlying values; implement a settlement without admitting liability. 💡 Why this matters: These are very difficult to resolve if values are central to identity.

Threats to Self-Concept and World View

This conflict type occurs when what one disputant's viewpoint threatens the other disputant's central ideas about him/herself or about how the world works. Example: In medical malpractice, allegations threaten the physician's self-concept as competent; an employee's allegation of racism threatens a supervisor's self-concept as tolerant. Useful approaches: agree to disagree while implementing a solution that threatens neither side; use negotiation tactics that confirm and protect dignity; use negotiating agents. Conflicts based on negative stereotypes are very difficult to resolve.

🔑 Definition — Threats to Self-Concept and World View: A conflict type where a disputant's viewpoint threatens the other's central ideas about themselves or how the world works. 📌 Example: Medical malpractice allegations threaten a physician's self-concept. Steps: Agree to disagree; use dignity-confirming tactics; hire negotiating agents.

Structural and Interpersonal Power Issues

Occurs when a disputant perceives an unjust balance of power and struggles to rectify it. Example: School integration and affirmative action disputes. The more powerful disputant is often unwilling to give up power and may not see the imbalance. If made aware, the powerful party can sometimes be convinced to give up power to preserve social structure, avoid violence, or align actions with values. Frequently, however, appeal to a more powerful authority (e.g., litigation) is the only method that produces lasting change.

🔑 Definition — Structural and Interpersonal Power Issues: A conflict type where a disputant perceives an unjust balance of power and struggles to rectify it. 📌 Example: School integration disputes. Steps: Make the powerful party aware of the imbalance; appeal to authority (litigation) if necessary.

Differing Attributions of Causation

Each disputant believes the existing state of affairs is due to a different cause and thus warrants a different remedy. Example: In a products liability case, the manufacturer contends the product was treated improperly, while the consumer contends the product is defective. Some attributional disputes are data-type conflicts (e.g., did she kick the washing machine?) while others are values conflicts (e.g., the machine should be built to handle occasional violence). The most effective treatment depends on the kind of attributional conflict involved.

🔑 Definition — Differing Attributions of Causation: A conflict type where each disputant believes the existing state of affairs is due to a different cause. 📌 Example: Manufacturer says product was misused; consumer says it's defective. Steps: Determine if it's a data conflict or a values conflict; treat accordingly.

Displaced Conflict

Occurs when there is an unacknowledged conflict and the disputants are disputing over something else. Example: Business partners with an unacknowledged conflict over allocation of rights dispute about a minor aspect of the business. The underlying conflict should be uncovered and diagnosed. A mediator is often useful. Unfortunately, the underlying conflict is often deep-rooted and difficult to resolve.

🔑 Definition — Displaced Conflict: A conflict type where there is an unacknowledged conflict and the disputants are disputing over something else. 📌 Example: Business partners argue over a minor issue due to a hidden conflict over rights and responsibilities. Steps: Uncover and diagnose the real conflict; use a mediator.

Misattributed Conflict

Occurs when there is an unacknowledged conflict and one disputant picks a fight with someone else. Example: A teen living in grinding poverty loses his temper and fights with a neighbor. It is important to uncover the real conflict to avoid repetitions. Often, the underlying conflict is a structural/power issue the disputant feels powerless to change. Sometimes, former disputants, once aware of the misattribution, can band together to address the real problems.

🔑 Definition — Misattributed Conflict: A conflict type where there is an unacknowledged conflict and one disputant picks a fight with someone else. 📌 Example: A poor teen takes out anger on a neighbor instead of addressing poverty. Steps: Uncover the real conflict (structural/power issue); band together to address the real problem.

⭐ Key Takeaways

A student must remember the nine distinct types of conflict sources: Preferences and Nuisances, Communication Difficulties, Differences in Conflict Orientation, Values, Threats to Self-Concept and World View, Structural/Interpersonal Power Issues, Differing Attributions of Causation, Displaced Conflict, and Misattributed Conflict. Each type has a specific cause and requires a tailored resolution approach, ranging from creative problem solving and active listening to agreeing to disagree, using mediators, or appealing to higher authorities. Critically, values conflicts and threats to self-concept are the most difficult to resolve, especially when coupled with other issues. Displaced and misattributed conflicts require uncovering the real, often deep-rooted, underlying issue.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. What is the difference between a displaced conflict and a misattributed conflict?
2. Explain why values conflicts are particularly difficult to resolve peacefully.
3. What is the recommended approach for managing communication difficulties in a conflict?
4. In a structural and interpersonal power issue dispute, what is a common limitation of trying to persuade the more powerful party to give up power?
5. According to the lecture, what distinguishes a "data-type" attributional dispute from a "values" attributional dispute?

📘 Lecture 13 — Interest Analysis I

📖 Overview: This lecture introduces interest analysis as a critical step in conflict diagnosis. It explains the distinction between positions (what people say they want) and interests (why they want it), and explores the negative consequences of positional bargaining. The lecture emphasizes the importance of analyzing both one's own interests and those of the other disputant to achieve optimal conflict resolution.

🗂️ Topics Covered

This lecture covers the definition of interests and interest analysis, the distinction between positions and underlying interests, the process of analyzing one's own interests during conflict, the concept of positional bargaining and its three negative consequences, the advantages of knowing one's team's interests, the seven purposes of interest analysis, and the five key points for analyzing the other disputant's interests.

📝 Lecture Summary

Quotations

The lecture opens with a quote from La Bruyere: "The shortest and best way to make your fortune is to let people see clearly that is in their best interests to promote yours."

Interests

Interests may be defined as a sense of concern with and curiosity about someone or something. The motivations that individuals have during a conflict, including positions (demands), aspirations, underlying interests, principles, values, and basic needs may be described as interests.

Interests analysis

Interest analysis is perhaps the most critical step in the conflict diagnosis process. A systematic exploration of a conflict participant's interests is called interest analysis. Briefly stated, interests analysis is the development of an accurate and complete understanding of each conflict participant's positions, aspirations, interests, needs and values in relation to the interpersonal conflict. Interest analysis includes an explanation of all the underlying interests, needs, and values of each conflict participant, as well as an exploration of how all link together and are organized.

An effective interest analysis can mean the difference between grudging settlement and real satisfaction. Interests motivate people; they are the silent movers behind the positions people take. Your position is something you have decided upon your interests. So, interest is something what caused someone to decide something. What people normally say they want out of a conflict are positions, whereas the why of people shows what people want are interests.

🔑 Definition — Interests: The motivations that individuals have during a conflict, including positions, aspirations, underlying interests, principles, values, and basic needs.

Analyzing your interests

When you are involved in an interpersonal conflict, your thought processes are often clouded or diverted by strong emotions and stress. People caught up in a conflict often focus on the lines they have drawn in the sand — their positions — and on beating the other disputant — rather than on getting what is best for them.

Analyzing your interests also allows you to develop flexibility in your bargaining position, so that you can find better ways of attaining an agreement. In most negotiated agreements, "the devil is in the details"; failing to make effective arrangements for delivery, payment, and so forth can make the difference between a good sale and a very bad one.

Finally, using interest analysis allows you to avoid the negative consequences of drawing lines in the sand, known in the conflict resolution field as positional bargaining.

Positional bargaining

A process of negotiation that involves each disputant taking successively more moderate positions in hopes that eventually a compromise will result is described as positional bargaining.

🔑 Definition — Positional bargaining: A negotiation process involving each disputant taking successively more moderate positions in hopes that eventually a compromise will result.

Negative consequences of positional bargaining

There are three negative consequences of positional bargaining:

1. Becoming locked into position psychologically — regardless of whether a better option is available
2. Becoming blinded to issues unrelated to your position
3. Seeing the other disputant as the enemy, leading to an unnecessary impasse and additional "spinoff" conflicts

💡 Why this matters: Positional bargaining creates a competitive, win-lose dynamic that often prevents parties from discovering creative solutions that could satisfy everyone's underlying interests.

Advantages of knowing your team's interests

Following are the advantages of knowing the team's interests:

1. Gain a clearer understanding of your goals
2. Clarify what interests would be best met in resolving this conflict and what interests would be better met elsewhere
3. Develop flexibility in bargaining, so that a good settlement is more attainable
4. Avoid the problems of positional bargaining
5. Positional bargaining makes enemies.

Purpose of Interest Analysis

Here are the purposes of interest analysis:

1. It promotes clear thinking and prevents inappropriate decision making resulting from emotional arousal and stress
2. It helps clarify what one wants and needs, and helps the user rank interests in relation to one another
3. It helps user visualize and recognize alternate ways to meet goals
4. It creates greater flexibility in coming to settlement
5. It ensures user isn't diverted by details, hot emotion, heat of the moment, and so on
6. It ensures user doesn't miss an optimal resolution
7. It enables user to evaluate whether some interests could be met outside the conflict

Analyzing the other disputant's interests

Besides analyzing one's own interests and those of one's principal, it is also important to analyze the interests of the other disputant. Here are important points regarding analysis of other disputant's interests:

1. Greater likelihood of settlement on optimal terms: ability to appeal to other disputant's desires while meeting your own goals
2. Avoid settling for less than you could get
3. Minimizing the likelihood of settlement sabotage by appealing to the other disputant's interests
4. Avoid positional bargaining
5. If coercion becomes necessary, allows one to design more effective pressure

⭐ Key Takeaways

The central lesson is that interests — the underlying motivations, needs, and values — drive conflict behavior, not the surface-level positions people state. Effective conflict resolution requires systematic interest analysis of both yourself and the other disputant. Positional bargaining (taking successively moderate positions to reach compromise) has three major negative consequences: psychological lock-in, blindness to other issues, and perceiving the other as an enemy. Knowing your team's interests provides five advantages including clarity of goals, flexibility, and avoiding the problems of positional bargaining. Finally, analyzing the other disputant's interests increases likelihood of optimal settlement and allows for more effective pressure if needed.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. What is the difference between a "position" and an "interest" in conflict resolution?
2. What are the three negative consequences of positional bargaining?
3. List at least four of the seven purposes of interest analysis.
4. What are the five advantages of knowing your team's interests?
5. Why is it important to analyze the other disputant's interests, in addition to your own?

📘 Lecture 14 — Interest Analysis II

📖 Overview: This lecture deepens the analysis of conflict interests introduced previously. It explains how to analyze the interests of all participants, including constituents, stakeholders, and agents, to prevent sabotage and craft better solutions. The lecture introduces the Interest Tree diagram as a tool to map the hierarchical relationship between superficial and fundamental interests, and the Conflict Onion model to visualize the layers of a conflict.

🗂️ Topics Covered

The lecture covers analyzing the interests of constituents and stakeholders, and the advantages of interest analysis for different parties. It then explores the interests analysis of agents and advocates, defines what interests are, explains why we diagram interests, and teaches how to build an Interest Tree with a detailed example and tips. Finally, it introduces the Conflict Onion model, explaining its layers: positions, aspirations, deeper interests, principles/values, and basic human needs.

📝 Lecture Summary

Analyzing the interests of constituents and stakeholders

Constituents and stakeholders are affected by a conflict's course and outcome. Their connection to the disputants can significantly affect potential settlements, for good or ill. It is crucial to uncover conflicting interests that might lead to undermining negotiation or sabotaging a settlement. The ultimate result can be improved by taking account of what others are likely to do. For example, in a divorce case, the children's interests should be analyzed carefully, as without understanding them, the children may themselves contribute to the destruction of the agreements. An interest analysis should also include the agents and advocates for the other disputant, as their interests add to the complexity of motivations.

Advantages of interests analysis

The analysis provides specific advantages for different participants. For the disputant, it clarifies what they really want, enables consideration of whether interests are better met outside the conflict, enables greater flexibility, and avoids positional bargaining. For the other disputant, it enables crafting appealing proposals, avoids errors of judgment, prevents sabotage from unaddressed deep-seated interests, and allows tailoring coercive measures. For constituents and stakeholders, it allows proactive action to avoid later sabotage. For disputants' own agents and advocates, it reveals possible conflicts of interest. For agents or advocates for the other disputant, it reveals how their conflicts of interest may make resolution more difficult.

Interests analysis of agents and advocates

An interest analysis should explore the interests, values, and needs of the agents and advocates on all sides of the conflict. The principal reason to include one's own agents and advocates is to clarify whether they have problematic conflicts of interest with their principal. This analysis helps to better understand the complexities of what is motivating the "other team" and to develop coping strategies. Developing an understanding of the motivators of other team members allows one to strategize to cope with such conflicts.

What are interests?

Interests are emotions, drives, needs, principles, values, preferences, likes and dislikes—the forces that move you to an action. These interests are the drives or motivators of human behavior. Since one individual has many interests related in a complex way, and parties to a conflict are multiple, understanding the logical relationship among them is hard. That is why we diagram the relationships among various interests.

🔑 Definition — Interests: Emotions, drives, needs, principles, values, preferences, likes and dislikes, or the forces that move you to an action.

Why diagram interests?

Superficial interests are logically connected to more fundamental interests. The concept of an interest tree diagram is used to represent the hierarchical and logical relationships between interests. It clarifies which fundamental interests underlie more superficial interests. Because superficial interests are "driven" by the deeper ones, clarifying these logical connections allows one to concede on superficial interests while standing firm on more fundamental interests. Looking at interests of others allows one to appeal to deeper interests as an "end run" around more superficial demands. Diagramming the interests of others creates the knowledge base needed to develop effective negotiation and other resolution strategies.

Interest Tree Example

The lecture provides an example of an Interest Tree for a conflict participant whose position is "I demand $20,000 or I sue!" The tree maps from a POSITION ("I demand $20,000 or I sue!") to:

• ASPIRATIONS: "I'd take anything over $10,000 if I can avoid court!"
  • INTERESTS: "Get back out-of-pocket losses" and "Avoid court: risky!"
• PRINCIPLES and VALUES: "People should be fairly paid," "Wrongdoers should be punished," and "Brother-in-law will think I'm spineless if I don't get good result"
• NEEDS: Deficiency needs (food, shelter, safety, clothing), Esteem needs, Identity needs, and Security needs

The diagram shows how the position "Get fair settlement" connects to deeper principles and ultimately to basic human needs like "Need money now: can't pay rent" and "Avoid time, expense of court."

Tips for Interest Trees

An interest tree must include the following points:

1. There must always be needs – other elements are optional
2. There may be multiple levels of underlying interests
3. Each position, aspiration, interest, and principle/value rectangle must logically relate (directly or indirectly) to one or more need rectangles
4. Don't confuse interests with facts or contentions

💡 Why this matters: The "Always ask WHY!" rule is the core technique for building an Interest Tree. For example, asking "Why is it important for you to get compensated fairly?" reveals the underlying value of justice.

Conflict Onion

The Conflict Onion is a model that visualizes a conflict as having multiple layers. The layers, from outermost to innermost, are:

Positions: A stated demand of a conflict participant; no stated demand means no position. Aspirations: Concrete aspirations may also be absent. For example, highly experienced negotiators may avoid either positions or aspirations altogether and start their analysis with interests. Underlying interests: There may be more than one level of underlying interests, with more superficial interests being driven by deeper ones. Principles, values: The core principles and values that drive the deeper interests. Basic human needs: The most fundamental layer, representing core human needs.

For example, an auto purchaser may have an interest in reliable transportation, and his deeper interest may be to get reliably to work every day.

🔑 Definition — Conflict Onion: A model showing the layers of a conflict: positions (outermost), aspirations, underlying interests, principles/values, and basic human needs (innermost).

⭐ Key Takeaways

The lecture emphasizes that understanding and analyzing interests is crucial for successful conflict resolution. The Interest Tree is a practical tool for visualizing the logical connection between superficial demands and deeper, fundamental needs, allowing a negotiator to concede on surface issues while standing firm on core values. The Conflict Onion provides a complementary model showing the layers of a conflict from positions down to basic human needs. A key rule is to always include needs in an Interest Tree and to avoid confusing interests with facts. Finally, analyzing the interests of all participants, including constituents, stakeholders, and agents, is essential to prevent sabotage and craft lasting settlements.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. Why is it important to analyze the interests of constituents and stakeholders in a conflict?
2. List three specific advantages of interest analysis for the disputant themselves.
3. Explain the core reason for diagramming interests using an Interest Tree.
4. According to the tips for Interest Trees, what is the one element that must always be present?
5. What are the five layers of the Conflict Onion, listed from outermost to innermost?

📘 Lecture 15 — Interest Analysis II

📖 Overview: This lecture delves deeper into the layers of the Conflict Onion, moving beyond underlying interests to explore principles, values, and basic human needs. It explains how these deep-seated drivers influence conflict behavior and provides theoretical frameworks like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Erikson's Psychosocial Development to diagnose and understand disputants' core motivations.

🗂️ Topics Covered

The lecture examines principles and values as a layer of the conflict onion, distinguishing genuine beliefs from rationalizations. It introduces distributive and procedural justice as key concepts. It then explores basic human needs, using Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Erik Erikson's theory of psychosocial development to understand the deep motivations that drive conflict behavior, which are often not directly articulated by disputants.

📝 Lecture Summary

Quotations

Kehlog Albran's quote humorously suggests that even the most difficult tasks can be accomplished with a little clever lubrication. Philip D. Armour's quote reveals that his stated interest in money is a surface-level expression of a deeper interest in personal success and winning in business conflicts, illustrating that true interests often lie beneath the surface.

Principles and values

Principles and values are a key layer in the conflict onion, representing the moral codes and beliefs that influence a disputant's interests. A conflict diagnostician must be able to distinguish between values held as honest, deeply held beliefs and those used disingenuously as a rationalization for a position. Principles and values are closely tied to basic human needs, especially the need for esteem from others and a stable, positive sense of self. 💡 Why this matters: Understanding whether a stated principle is a core value or a tactical argument is critical for finding a resolution that addresses the real conflict.

Justice and basic principles/values

The need for justice is one of the most basic human needs and is an intrinsic part of almost all interpersonal conflict. An outcome that violates a participant’s sense of justice is likely to fail. There are two major types of justice: distributive justice and procedural justice.

🔑 Definition — Distributive Justice: Concerned with whether the outcome of a conflict is fair. 📐 Formula: Fair outcome → determined by three principles:

• Equity: Resources allocated based on contributions. Most relied upon when groups need to be motivated as a group.
• Equality: Resources allocated equally. Most prominent when there is a high need for group cohesion.
• Need: Resources allocated to those who need them most. For example, a judge orders child support based on the family's need. 📌 Example: A work team receives a bonus. If the team is focused on motivation, the bonus would be distributed based on individual performance (Equity). If the team needs to improve cohesion, the bonus would be split equally (Equality).

🔑 Definition — Procedural Justice: Refers to the fairness of the process used to reach a given outcome. It is extremely important for lending a sense of legitimacy to a conflict resolution process that imposes an outcome on the disputants.

Basic Human Needs

Basic human needs lie at the very heart of the conflict onion, deeper than principles and values. People often cannot easily verbalize these needs; they must be inferred from what they say and do and the circumstances they are in. A good interest analysis must include basic human needs, as failure to address them creates pressure for them to be expressed in other ways. Theories about human development provide guidance for a conflict diagnostician.

Interests and the Conflict Onion

The lecture provides a table defining the five layers of the conflict onion:

Maslow’s Need Theory

Abraham Maslow's theory explains that people have a drive to satisfy human needs organized hierarchically. The most basic deficiency needs (physiological, safety) must be mostly satisfied before a person is motivated to address higher-level being needs (self-actualization).

🔑 Definition — Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: A motivational theory in psychology comprising a five-tier model of human needs, often depicted as hierarchical levels within a pyramid. 📐 Formula: Lower needs → must be satisfied → to be motivated by higher needs. 📌 Example: A person who is struggling to find food and shelter (physiological and safety needs) is unlikely to be motivated by a conflict about their reputation or esteem. Their core motivation will be driven by their unmet basic needs. Conversely, a person whose basic needs are secure will be more motivated by needs for belonging, esteem, and self-actualization.

Erik Erikson’s Theory

Erik Erikson's theory of psychosocial development posits that healthy development over the human lifespan follows a set course, with particular life stages associated with particular overriding concerns. Knowing a person's approximate age can provide clues to their deep-seated motivations. Poorly resolved stages can cause people to get "stuck," and these underlying motivations often drive irrational conflict.

📌 Example: An employee in late adulthood (Stage 8) who is embroiled in a conflict over a small procedural issue might be motivated by a deep need for ego integrity—a need to have the story of their career be one of being right and principled. A middle-aged manager (Stage 7) in conflict might be driven by a need for generativity—wanting to leave a legacy or mentor a team, and a process that denies them this feels like stagnation.

⭐ Key Takeaways

For the exam, you must remember the conflict onion's five layers, with basic human needs being the deepest. Understand the critical distinction between distributive justice (fairness of outcome) and procedural justice (fairness of process) and their three principles (equity, equality, need). You must be able to apply both Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Erikson's eight stages of psychosocial development as diagnostic tools to infer the deep-seated motivations that drive irrational or persistent conflict. Finally, remember that disputants cannot always verbalize their basic human needs; these must be inferred from their behavior and circumstances.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. What is the fundamental difference between distributive justice and procedural justice?
2. What are the three principles used to determine distributive justice, and give a scenario where each is most applicable?
3. According to Maslow's hierarchy, why might a person not be motivated by a conflict over social recognition?
4. In which of Erikson's stages would a person's primary life challenge involve developing enduring intimate relationships, and what is the associated crisis?
5. Why is it important for a conflict diagnostician to distinguish between legitimately held principles and values and those used as a rationalization?

📘 Lecture 16 — ASSESSING THE CHARACTER OF THE CONFLICT I

📖 Overview: This lecture examines Morton Deutsch's theory of constructive and destructive conflict, focusing on the fundamental distinction between cooperative and competitive conflict. It explains why cooperation tends to produce constructive outcomes while competition leads to destructiveness, and why it is easier for cooperative conflict to become competitive than vice versa. Understanding these dynamics is critical for transforming competitive conflicts into cooperative ones.

🗂️ Topics Covered

This lecture explores Morton Deutsch's four-component theory of constructive and destructive conflict, including the premises of cooperative versus competitive conflict. Key concepts examined include autistic hostility, reactive devaluation, and meta-conflict. The lecture then analyzes how conflict characterization affects communication, coordination of effort, responses to suggestions, feelings between disputants, ego effects, perception of similarity, and task focus in both cooperative and competitive contexts.

📝 Lecture Summary

Morton Deutsch's Theory of Constructive and Destructive Conflict

Deutsch’s ideas about what makes conflict constructive and destructive are well summarized in his 1973 work, "The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes." His theory rests on four key propositions. First, conflict is either cooperative or competitive. Second, cooperation tends to be constructive, and competition tends to be destructive. Third, cooperation and competition tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies: perception becomes reality. Fourth, cooperation easily turns into competition, but not vice versa.

💡 Why this matters: This "crude axiom" that perception becomes reality means that how disputants frame their conflict fundamentally determines whether it will escalate productively or destructively.

Premises of Deutsch's Theory

1. Cooperative conflict A conflict in which the disputants believe that, when one disputant helps him- or herself, the other disputant is also helped.

2. Competitive conflict A conflict in which the disputants believe that, when one disputant helps him- or herself, the other disputant is humble or quiet or less powerful.

3. Autistic hostility A phenomenon in which hostile feelings promote a lack of communication, leading to negative attributions about the acts, attitudes, and motivations of the other person is termed as autistic hostility. Because of the lack of effective communication, neither disputant is able to correct misperceptions.

🔑 Definition — Autistic hostility: a phenomenon in which hostile feelings promote a lack of communication, leading to negative attributions about the acts, attitudes, and motivations of the other person.

4. Reactive Devaluation A phenomenon present in escalating conflict, in which a suggestion made by one disputant, or members of his or her team, is met with suspicion by the other disputant, or members of his or her team may be described as reactive devaluation.

🔑 Definition — Reactive devaluation: a phenomenon in which a suggestion made by one disputant is met with suspicion by the other disputant, simply because of who made the suggestion.

5. Meta-Conflict (meta-dispute) An interpersonal conflict (dispute) over the way another interpersonal conflict is being handled.

🔑 Definition — Meta-conflict: an interpersonal conflict over the way another interpersonal conflict is being handled.

How the conflict is characterized in the minds of the disputants

Since a cooperative conflict is perceived as promotively interdependent, the disputant perceiving a conflict as cooperative will tend to see the conflict as a joint problem to be solved i.e. if the problem is solved for one disputant, it will also tend to be solved for the other.

Communication in cooperation and competition

Since the disputant in a cooperative conflict sees the goals of the other disputant as promoting his or her own interests, it appears to be in his or her best interests to share as much information as possible. Cooperation is characterized by open, honest communication of relevant information. In contrast, since the interests of disputants in a competitive conflict are seen to be in opposition, competition is characterized by efforts on the part of the perceiving disputant to avoid open and honest communication. In competitive conflict, disputants tend to be suspicious of one another, fearing that information they share will be used against them.

Coordination of Effort in cooperation and competition

Since a disputant who sees the conflict as cooperative believes that the other disputant's efforts will help him or her, the disputant will tend to try to coordinate his or her efforts with those of the other disputants.

Efforts of the disputants on One Another's Behalf

Obviously, a disputant who believes that meeting the other disputant's interests will meet his or her own interests has good reason to help the other disputants: it will help him or her as well.

Responses to the Suggestions of the other disputant

The reactions of one disputant to suggestions by the other disputants are controlled by the attitudes engendered by their perceptions. In cooperative conflict, a disputant will tend to see the suggestions of the other disputants as motivated by a sincere desire to help, since everyone's goals are perceived to be complementary. In cooperative conflict, suggestions tend to be welcomed, approved of, or at least taken at face value.

Feelings of the Disputants for one another

There is a great deal of evidence from social psychological research indicating that disputants in a cooperative relationship tend to develop feelings of friendliness and positive regard for one another.

Effect of Cooperation behavior on the disputants' Egos

In a cooperative conflict, cooperating with the other disputant is a comfortable outgrowth of the self interest of each disputant. The feelings of friendliness that tend to grow out of a cooperative relationship further motivate the disputants to be helpful to one another.

Perception of Similarity and difference

The positive and negative regard that cooperating and competing disputants hold for each other have indication for their perceptions about one another. People who like one another tend to focus on, and even inflate, mutual similarities, while they tend to ignore differences.

Task focus in cooperation and competition

The disputant who perceives a conflict as cooperative believes that he or she helps him or herself by helping the other disputant; he or she tends to stay focused on the task at hand. Thus cooperation tends to be characterized by task focus and efficiency.

Productivity, containment, and escalation of cooperative and competitive conflict

A cooperative conflict tends to be characterized by contained size and maximal productivity. There are several reasons for this feature of cooperative conflict.

⭐ Key Takeaways

The single most important idea from this lecture is Deutsch's "crude axiom" that perception becomes reality: how disputants frame their conflict as cooperative or competitive fundamentally determines whether it becomes constructive or destructive. Students must remember the four key premises of Deutsch's theory, especially that cooperation easily turns into competition but not vice versa. The five premises—cooperative conflict, competitive conflict, autistic hostility, reactive devaluation, and meta-conflict—provide the vocabulary for analyzing real conflicts. Understanding that cooperation is characterized by open communication, coordinated effort, positive regard, and task focus while competition breeds suspicion, guarded communication, negative feelings, and misperception is essential for practitioners who want to transform destructive conflicts into constructive ones.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. According to Deutsch, what is the relationship between perception and reality in conflict?
2. What is autistic hostility and how does it affect communication between disputants?
3. Define reactive devaluation and explain how it operates in escalating conflict.
4. Why is it easier for a cooperative conflict to become competitive than for a competitive conflict to become cooperative?
5. How does a disputant's perception of the conflict (cooperative vs. competitive) affect their response to suggestions made by the other party?

📘 Lecture 17 — Assessing the Character of the Conflict II

📖 Overview: This lecture continues the assessment of conflict character by examining the features of cooperation and competition. It explains Deutsch's major premises about how cooperation tends to be constructive while competition is destructive, and introduces techniques for transforming competitive conflict into cooperative conflict. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for effective conflict management.

🗂️ Topics Covered

This lecture covers the features of cooperation and competition while in conflict, Deutsch's premise that cooperation is constructive and competition destructive, Deutsch's Crude Axiom about self-fulfilling prophecies in conflict, the competition and cooperation cycles, the premise that it is easier to move from cooperation to competition than vice versa, and ten specific techniques to transform competitive conflict into cooperative conflict with detailed examples for each technique.

📝 Lecture Summary

Features of Cooperation and Competition while in conflict

The lecture presents a comprehensive comparison of features when disputants adopt a cooperative versus competitive approach to conflict. In cooperation, the conflict is seen as a joint problem to be solved, characterized by open, honest communication of relevant information. Disputants pool efforts to gather information (efficient in time and money), try to help one another, and generate feelings of friendliness where they see similarities rather than differences. The dispute tends to be contained in size and does not spread. One disputant's suggestions are welcomed and respected by the other. Cooperating gives an ego boost, disputants tend to be task-oriented, and total productivity is maximized.

In contrast, competition involves seeing the conflict as a contest with a winner and loser, characterized by avoidance of communication, miscommunication, and misleading communication. Disputants duplicate efforts to gather information due to mistrust (inefficient in time and money), try to obstruct one another, and generate feelings of enmity and hostility where they ignore similarities and focus on differences. Meta-conflicts and beliefs about hostile intentions cause the original conflict to spread and escalate. One disputant's suggestions are mistrusted and seen as a devious effort to gain the upper hand (reactive devaluation). Cooperating feels like losing face and is psychologically intolerable. "Defeating the enemy" becomes more important than staying on task, and total productivity is impaired.

🔑 Definition — Reactive Devaluation: The tendency for one disputant's suggestions for resolving the dispute to be mistrusted by the other and seen as a devious effort to gain the upper hand.

Cooperation constructive, competition destructive

Deutsch's second major premise is that cooperation tends to be constructive, whereas competition tends to be destructive. The many benefits of using cooperation rather than competition to resolve conflict follow directly from the ten major features of cooperation and competition outlined above. This premise forms the foundation for why conflict managers should strive to create cooperative conditions.

Premise 3: Deutsch's Crude Axioms

Deutsch's Crude Axiom states that cooperation begets cooperation and competition begets competition. A disputant's perception regarding whether the conflict is cooperative or competitive will produce conduct that tends to reinforce this perception. In other words, cooperation and competition tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies. The basic idea is: if a disputant thinks of a conflict as cooperative, it will tend to become more cooperative, and if a disputant thinks of a conflict as competitive, it will become more competitive.

The reason for this is that a disputant who thinks their interdependence with the other disputant is promotive will tend to try to help the other in an act of self-aggrandizement, actually creating more promotive interdependence. But a disputant who thinks the interdependence is contrient will avoid promoting the interests of the other out of a desire to protect themselves, thus increasing the contrience of the interdependence. One recurring theme in conflict diagnosis is that conflict participants who are unable to read the minds of other participants tend to use the conflict itself as a source of information about their motivations. The more objective information about the conflict possessed by each disputant, the less likely the disputant is to be swayed by the other's behavior.

🔑 Definition — Deutsch's Crude Axiom: Cooperation begets cooperation and competition begets competition; perceptions of conflict type produce conduct that reinforces those perceptions as self-fulfilling prophecies. 💡 Why this matters: This explains why conflicts often escalate or de-escalate on their own — early perceptions set the trajectory for the entire conflict process.

Competition Cycle

The Competition Cycle shows the internal dynamism of competitive conflict. Understanding this dynamism can be used to transform competitive conflict into cooperative conflict. The cycle illustrates how competitive behaviors reinforce each other in a self-perpetuating pattern.

Cooperation Cycle

The understanding of internal dynamics of cooperative conflict can lead to reaping the promotive benefits of conflict. The peaceful nature of conflict assures good quality of life to the participants. However, the lecture notes that some individuals enjoy competition and conflict.

Premise 4: It is easier to move from cooperation to competition than vice versa

Deutsch's final premise about cooperation and competition is that cooperation is relatively fragile. People never have perfect knowledge about one another, and in their fear and suspicion, they tend to set in motion protective actions that promote competition. This means maintaining cooperation requires conscious effort and safeguards against the natural tendency toward competitive escalation.

Techniques to transform competitive conflict into cooperative

The lecture presents ten methods and techniques to transform competitive conflict into cooperative conflict, each targeting specific steps in the competitive cycle:

1. Choose Language with Care - Affects perception of contrient interdependence. Example: Instead of calling disputants "opponents," call them "Saleem" and "Naila." Instead of referring to the conflict as "dispute," refer to it as "the problem we need to solve." Instead of asking disputants to "state their positions," ask them to "talk about their goals for the process."

2. Assign Joint Tasks - Affects perception of contrient interdependence and perception of inefficiency in conflict resolution. Example: Business partners disputing over appropriate assignment of the venture's profits are assigned to interview jointly a CPA to learn steps they can take to increase overall profitability.

3. Expand the Pipe - Affects perception of contrient interdependence. Example: Spouses disputing over a property settlement are encouraged to characterize a payment as alimony — the wealthier spouse receives a tax deduction bigger than the tax the other spouse will have to pay on the amount received. The overall benefit is allocated between spouses so both are better off.

4. Establish ground rules for civility in communication - Affects perception of enmity between disputants. Example: An ADR neutral requires each disputant to refrain from "bad-mouthing" the other and takes time to guide each disputant in using complimentary, polite discourse.

5. Create or focus on a common enemy - Affects perception of enmity, hostility, and perception of contrient interdependence. Example: In a custody dispute, the parent's advocate reframes the issue into a problem of how the parents can convince a mother-in-law who has created friction in the past of the merits of a proposed parenting plan.

6. Point out areas of agreement - Affects perception of difference in values and principles. Example: The disputant's advocate makes sure to comment "so, you agree about that" each time the disputants mention something that has already been resolved.

7. Focus blame away from the disputant and towards process - Affects perception that the other disputant is at fault for failure to progress in conflict. Example: In response to a disputant's complaint about the other disputant's non-compliance with a prior agreement, counsel says, "so those arrangements didn't work for you. Let's work on making some new, more effective and workable arrangements."

8. Prepare "the case" - Minimizes the impact of Deutsch's Crude Axiom. Example: The disputant is encouraged to get all the information they can about the factual and legal aspects of the dispute and to perform in-depth conflict diagnosis.

9. Use trust-building exercises - Addresses lack of trust between disputants. Example: Disputants are encouraged to confirm the accuracy of one another's statements. The ADR professional gently guides the suspicious disputant into realizing that the other disputant has, in fact, been behaving as the disputant would have believed in the same thing.

10. Set up structure to create sharing of information - Addresses the tendency to mislead. Example: The mediator requires the sharing of information to both disputants. The mediator asks each disputant to back up claims about expenditures with receipts and other documentation.

⭐ Key Takeaways

The most critical concepts from this lecture are that cooperation is constructive and competition is destructive in conflict, and Deutsch's Crude Axiom explains how these orientations become self-fulfilling prophecies. Understanding the ten features distinguishing cooperation from competition allows practitioners to diagnose conflict character, while knowledge that cooperation is more fragile than competition highlights the need for deliberate intervention. Ten specific techniques exist to transform competitive conflict into cooperative conflict, each targeting a specific step in the competitive cycle. The key to transformation lies in changing perceptions of interdependence, communication patterns, and trust levels between disputants.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. What are the ten features that distinguish cooperation from competition in conflict?
2. Explain Deutsch's Crude Axiom and why cooperation and competition tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies.
3. Why is cooperation considered more fragile than competition according to Deutsch's fourth premise?
4. Name five techniques to transform competitive conflict into cooperative conflict and explain which step in the competitive cycle each technique affects.
5. What is reactive devaluation and how does it manifest in competitive conflict?

📘 Lecture 18 — TRUST AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE I

📖 Overview: This lecture explores the fundamental concept of trust and its critical role in conflict management and human relationships. It introduces a prominent three-level theory of trust—calculus-based, knowledge-based, and identification-based—and explains how each level functions, how they differ, and their applicability in various contexts including business and intimate relationships.

🗂️ Topics Covered

The lecture begins by defining trust and mistrust as distinct phenomena, discusses the role of trust in business relationships, and examines the relationship between trust and conflict. The core of the lecture analyzes the three levels of trust in detail: calculus-based trust, knowledge-based trust, and identification-based trust, including their characteristics, how they are established, and their respective advantages and limitations.

📝 Lecture Summary

What is Trust?

Trust can be defined as a state of mind in which a person believes that another person intends to be helpful and, accordingly, that it is appropriate to take risks in the relationship. It is a basic component of human relationships and plays a vital role in improving the quality of every relationship. The behaviors essential to maintaining a constructive or cooperative relationship involve an element of risk. To risk open communication and altruistic behavior that makes cooperative sharing of tasks possible, each disputant must believe that the other will not exploit the situation. The attitude that allows this risk-taking behavior is called ‘trust’.

What is Mistrust?

Mistrust is not the absence of different forms of trust; it is a separate and distinct phenomenon. Disputants in a state of mistrust are actively motivated to protect themselves from the other disputant. Lack of trust involves uncertainty, while mistrust is a state in which one individual actively believes that the other is likely to harm him or her. Trust is difficult to establish when mistrust is present. Mistrust is associated with aggressive behavior and the escalation of destructive conflict.

Trust and Business

A business relationship is designed for people who must be involved in a relationship but who have very low levels of trust in each other. A business relationship has the following components:

1. Explicit and detailed agreement
2. Formality
3. Restraint of emotional expression
4. Balanced, neutral facilitating and evaluation

If you succeed in building mutual trust with your business partner, it will serve as a strong foundation that will free you to respond together to the unexpected, which is essential for mutual creativity in conflict resolution. Business is too complex to expect ready agreement on all issues, and trust does not imply easy harmony. However, in a trusting relationship, conflicts motivate you to probe for deeper understanding and search for constructive solutions. Trust creates good will, which sustains the relationship when one firm does something the other dislikes.

Trust and Conflict

When one puts faith and trust in another, and that confidence is broken, it can create an emotional response that elevates to conflict. To trust someone is to place a high confidence level that the relationship will not be compromised in any way. A trusting relationship leads to feelings of confidence and security. A breach of trust unleashes our strongest emotions that frequently lead to conflict.

Breach of Trust and its Consequences

Even a single threat to mutual trust can turn a cooperative relationship into an escalating competition. When trust is threatened, the mistrustful person suspects that the other may harm or exploit him or her, and risky behaviors, such as information and effort sharing, are abandoned as dangerous. Moreover, a mistrustful person in a conflict is likely to see his or her own well-being as dependent on self-defense. Mistrust is therefore associated with aggressive behavior and the escalation of destructive conflict.

Three Levels of Trust

The three levels of trust are: (1) Calculus-based trust (2) Knowledge-based trust (3) Identification-based trust

Some forms of trust are hard to establish, and some forms of trust are more useful than others.

Calculus-based Trust

The first and most basic level of trust is called calculus-based trust. It is based on knowledge of the consequences of compliance or noncompliance. In legal disputes, calculus-based trust is more commonly used, such as in settlement agreements and court judgments. The incentives that can produce calculus-based trust are as varied as the individuals involved in the conflict, and they do not always involve money. Disputants are made aware of the fact that refusal to comply with settlement provisions can mean being hauled into court, made to produce information about assets, and enforced to sell property. These threats of inconvenience and penalty are usually enough to promote compliance and to create minimal levels of peace of mind.

🔑 Definition — Calculus-based trust: Trust based on knowledge that the other person won’t want to incur the consequences of betrayal.

📐 Formula: Compliance = Threat of Penalty + Limited Trust → Minimal Peace of Mind

📌 Example: In a legal settlement, a disputant complies with the agreement because they know that refusal can result in being taken to court and having assets seized.

Calculus-based Trust at a glance

• Trust based on knowledge that the other person won’t want to incur the consequences of betrayal
• Narrow applicability to the action for which consequences are in place
• Easiest type of trust to establish (you just need a contract)

💡 Why this matters: Calculus-based trust is the foundation of most formal agreements and legal systems, but it is limited in scope and does not foster deep relationships.

Knowledge-based Trust

The second level of trust is known as knowledge-based trust. It is based on one disputant’s knowledge and understanding of the other disputant. For example, if a woman needs to leave her children with their regular babysitter while she attends a business meeting, she can trust that the babysitter will keep them safe because of her long-standing history of having done so in the past. Knowledge-based trust is usually unwarranted in new relationships, in very short relationships, and in relationships that are caught up in a competition cycle. After a period of effective functioning, we may convert calculus-based trust into knowledge-based trust. This type of trust is based on knowledge of the other person’s habits, traits, attitudes, principles, and values.

🔑 Definition — Knowledge-based trust: Trust based on knowledge of the other person’s habits, traits, attitudes, principles, and values.

📌 Example: A mother trusts a long-time babysitter because of her past reliability, background, skills, education, and values observed over numerous interactions.

Knowledge-based Trust at a glance

• Trust based on knowledge of the other person’s habits, traits, attitudes, principles, and values
• Applicability to all actions about which relevant characteristics of the person are known
• Establishment depends on knowing the other person well enough to acquire relevant knowledge

Identification-based Trust

The highest level of trust is identification-based trust. It is founded on the disputant’s sense of identification with one another. Because the disputants identify with one another, they tend to see themselves as being “as one” in their goals, values, and needs. Thus, it is intrinsically satisfying to a disputant in a relationship characterized by identification-based trust to meet the perceived needs of the other disputant. In intimate relationships such as those between family members, preserving identification-based trust is more important than specific substantive agreements. For example, two spouses arguing over the best color to paint a bedroom generally have a much greater need to preserve their mutual sense of identification than to resolve the issue of paint color. Business organizations that indoctrinate their new employees into the company and devote resources to building company spirit are exploiting the advantages of this type of trust.

🔑 Definition — Identification-based trust: Trust based on a sense of identification, or “oneness,” with the other person.

📌 Example: Two spouses arguing about paint color prioritize preserving their mutual identification and relationship over the specific outcome of the argument.

Identification-based Trust at a glance

• Trust based on a sense of identification, or “oneness,” with the other person
• Broad applicability to entire relationship
• Establishment is very difficult: requires a period of intimacy, partnership during a crisis, or another intense interconnection

⭐ Key Takeaways

This lecture establishes that trust is a critical behavioral attribute for individuals and organizations, existing in three distinct levels: calculus-based, knowledge-based, and identification-based. Calculus-based trust, relying on consequences and contracts, is the easiest to establish but has narrow applicability. Knowledge-based trust, built on understanding the other person’s habits and values, requires time and interaction to develop. Identification-based trust, the highest and most difficult level, is founded on a sense of oneness and is vital for intimate relationships. A breach of trust can rapidly escalate conflict, while higher levels of trust lead to greater relationship outcomes and efficiency.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. What is the fundamental difference between a lack of trust (uncertainty) and active mistrust?
2. List the four components of a business relationship designed for low-trust situations.
3. What are the three levels of trust, and which one is easiest to establish?
4. Explain how knowledge-based trust can be converted from calculus-based trust, using the example of an employee.
5. Why is identification-based trust considered the highest level, and what does it require to be established?

📘 Lecture 19 — Trust and Its Significance II

📖 Overview: This lecture continues the exploration of trust in conflict management, detailing the different types of trust (calculus-based, knowledge-based, and identification-based), their origins, and their effects on relationships. It also provides practical strategies for building trust, drafting effective agreements, and managing low-trust situations, which is crucial for successful conflict resolution and cooperation.

🗂️ Topics Covered

The lecture covers the advantages of high trust levels, then examines the three origins of trust: calculus-based, knowledge-based, and identification-based trust. It discusses the effects of both high and low trust levels on cycles of cooperation and competition. The lecture then provides methods for building trust and introduces the concept of a "business relationship" for low-trust situations, including how to draft effective agreements. Finally, it outlines strategies for dealing with low-trust situations and key points for developing a trusting environment.

📝 Lecture Summary

Trust and Its Significance II

Trust is a critical component of conflict management that can be built between individuals, companies, or countries. High levels of trust carry distinct advantages, though they are not always attainable. A "business relationship" can protect disputants when trust is low, and low levels of trust can be promoted into higher levels.

Advantages of high trust level

High levels of trust provide several advantages, including less guesswork, fewer formalities leading to greater efficiency, pleasant feelings and a comfortable work environment, fostering cooperation, and a better quality of life for everyone.

Origins of trust

Calculus-based trust comes from provisions in contracts that give people incentives not to harm one another, such as an agreement specifying penalties for breach. Since a contract is all that is needed to create this form of trust, it is relatively easy to establish, even between hostile adversaries. It can also come from the course of dealing itself, where each disputant counts on the other to preserve the relationship because of its intrinsic advantages.

Knowledge-based trust comes from any situation in which people become well-known to each other. It does not require intimate knowledge but can be based on a course of dealing. The cooperation cycle can promote this trust easily, especially when it is clear that interests are not in conflict. Regular communication also promotes knowledge-based trust.

Identification-based trust is the hardest to establish and is commonly found among intimate partners or families. It is created in situations involving a joint venture that both disputants care about deeply. Some multinational companies (MNCs) build this trust through inculcation of company-specific values, such as requiring employees to sing loyalty-promoting poems or songs.

💡 Why this matters: Understanding the three origins of trust helps in selecting the right strategy to build trust based on the specific relationship and context.

Effects of trust

High levels of trust, particularly identification-based trust, increase the chances of perpetuating a cooperation cycle. In contrast, low levels of trust can trigger a competition cycle. Situations with little or no trust include brand new relationships, transactions between strangers, and situations involving a betrayal of trust. Mistrustfulness creates a perception of contrient interdependence, leading to hidden information and duplicated effort, which escalate the competition cycle.

Building of trust

When confidence in a relationship is broken, it can create an emotional response that elevates to conflict. Trusting someone means placing a high confidence level that the relationship will not be compromised. Confidence building measures (CBMs) provide a good example, such as those used between India and Pakistan, which have led to increased trade.

🔑 Definition — Confidence Building Measures (CBMs): Actions taken to build trust and reduce tensions between parties, often used in international relations.

Business Relationships

A business relationship is designed for people who must be in a relationship but have very low levels of trust. Its components include:

• Explicit and detailed agreements
• Formal, preferably written communication
• No sharing of emotion
• Balanced, neutral assessment methods

Achieving a Business Relationship through Effective agreement Drafting

Poor agreement drafting can lead to misunderstandings that are perceived as betrayal in a low-trust climate. Effective agreement drafting consists of five goals:

• Accuracy and completeness: The agreement must correctly and completely set down the parties' agreement without expanding upon or altering negotiation results.
• Clarity and certainty: All rights, responsibilities, and procedures (e.g., payment method, delivery dates, shipping responsibility) must be clear.
• Flexibility: The agreement should be workable despite unforeseen future developments, often balanced against certainty.
• Legal enforceability: The agreement should preserve the legal status of a contract, with appropriate signature lines, seals, and acknowledgements.
• Relationship preservation: The agreement should avoid damaging the relationship by preserving fairness and avoiding inflammatory or demeaning language.

Low trust situation

Situations where trust is low include new transactions and relationships, breakdowns in close relationships, historical enemies, and apparent betrayal of trust.

Dealing with low trust situations

In intimate relationships, preserving identification-based trust is the priority. In other situations, create calculus-based trust first.

🔑 Key Concept — Ease of Establishing vs. Scope of Trust: Trust that is easier to establish (calculus-based) has a narrower scope and usefulness. Trust that is harder to establish (identification-based) has the broadest scope and highest usefulness.

Key Points to Remember

To develop a trusting environment, remember to:

• Be a model of calm and control
• Don't give in to emotional outbursts
• Don't assume people are being difficult intentionally
• Find a quiet place to resolve breaches of trust privately

Set ground rules for discussion:

• No raising of voices
• This is not a debate
• Speak only for yourself using "I" phrases
• Confront the issues, not the people
• Maintain or enhance self-esteem

⭐ Key Takeaways

Trust exists in three levels: calculus-based (easiest, through contracts), knowledge-based (through familiarity), and identification-based (hardest, through deep shared values). High trust fosters cooperation, while low trust triggers competition cycles. When dealing with low trust, a formal "business relationship" with explicit agreements provides protection. Effective agreement drafting requires accuracy, clarity, flexibility, enforceability, and relationship preservation. Finally, trust can be deliberately built through confidence-building measures and respectful communication, moving parties from calculus-based to higher forms of trust.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. What are the three types of trust, and which is easiest to establish?
2. What are five advantages of having a high level of trust in a relationship?
3. Name all five goals of effective agreement drafting for business relationships.
4. What is a key strategy for dealing with low trust in intimate versus non-intimate relationships?
5. What ground rules should be set for a discussion about a breach of trust?

📘 Lecture 20 — ASSESSING IMPEDIMENTS TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT I

📖 Overview: This lecture introduces the concept of impediments that block successful conflict resolution. It explores how culture, social systems, and individual psychology create barriers to resolving interpersonal disputes. Understanding these impediments is critical for any conflict manager, as awareness of these obstacles is the first step toward overcoming them.

🗂️ Topics Covered

The lecture covers fourteen key factors that impede conflict resolution, beginning with the first five: motivation to seek vengeance, meta-disputes, mistrust, vastly different perceptions of reality, and other impediments such as over-commitment, lack of ripeness, jackpot syndrome, loss aversion, and linkages. It also examines the role of culture and social systems in creating conflict, and discusses how individual and community-level factors contribute to conflict escalation.

📝 Lecture Summary

Introduction

Conflict is a product of the social and economic system. Culture plays an important role in creating conflict. At the individual level, individualism is rampant and is a source of conflict among people and societies. At the community level, the structure of society and the system of social relations are the sources of conflict.

Impediments to Resolving Interpersonal Conflict

There are fourteen important factors that impede the resolution of conflicts:

• Motivation to seek vengeance
• Meta-disputes
• Mistrust
• Vastly different perceptions about reality
• Over-commitment and entrapment
• Lack of ripeness
• Jackpot syndrome
• Loss aversion
• Linkages
• Conflicts of interest among team members
• Excluded stakeholders
• Disempowered disputant
• Unpleasant disputant
• Competitive culture or subculture

Motivation to seek vengeance

Vengeance makes an individual sacrifice the advantage of cooperation and presses for punishing the other disputant. A disputant who is motivated to seek vengeance is likely to sacrifice the advantages of cooperation to punish the other side. This phenomenon often occurs after a conflict has been in a competitive cycle and has escalated and spread.

Disputants have many reasons to seek revenge, including:

• Revenge to rectify injustice
• Revenge to prove self worth
• For preventing other disputant from further havoc
• Perception of hostility and hatred
• Vengeance as a difficult impediment to deal with conflict
• Disappointment of vengeful disputant
• Anger and angry attitude (rigidity of values/fixity of mind, lack of flexibility and creativity)

It can be difficult to admit to vengeful feelings, because they are considered socially unacceptable in many circumstances. The motivation to seek vengeance is a difficult impediment to deal with.

💡 Why this matters: Understanding vengeance as an impediment is crucial because it explains why otherwise rational people will sacrifice their own benefit simply to harm the other side, making resolution nearly impossible without intervention.

🔑 Definition — Vengeance: The motivation to punish the other disputant even at the cost of sacrificing the advantages of cooperation. 📌 Example: After a long legal dispute over a property boundary, one neighbor deliberately sells his land to a developer who will build a noisy factory, even though it lowers his own property value, simply to punish the other neighbor.

Meta Disputes

Meta-disputes are disputes about the way a conflict is being handled. Unresolved and escalating conflict breeds meta-disputes. The more the conflict is complex, the more the chances of evolving meta-disputes. The best way to deal with meta-disputes is to prevent them.

A cooperative conflict cycle minimizes meta-disputes through free and open communication. Disputants can avoid negative attributions of each other's behaviors. Meta-disputes generally are based on misunderstandings. A third party or mediator can untangle such misunderstandings.

🔑 Definition — Meta-dispute: A dispute about the way a conflict is being handled. 📌 Example: Two business partners are fighting not just about money (the original conflict), but about whether they should be talking at all, who gets to speak first, and whether emails or face-to-face meetings should be used (the meta-dispute).

Mistrust

Mistrust and low levels of trust are the engines driving conflict escalation. Low levels of trust create the suspicion, circumspection, and defensive tactics that promote inefficiency, bad feelings, and disputants' efforts to undermine one another.

Vastly different perceptions of reality

When disputants have dramatically differing perceptions of the facts or law that underlie the conflict, they usually have trouble achieving resolution without help. If each person has a strong, honest belief that his or her point of view is the correct one, then it is difficult to convince the person otherwise.

Summary

To resolve conflict, understanding about impediments to resolving conflict is important. There are fourteen impediments that are mentioned in this and the next lecture. Being aware and sensitive about these shall make you see those impediments operating in the conflict in hand; it will make you resolve the conflict comfortably.

⭐ Key Takeaways

1. Conflict arises from both individual factors (like individualism and vengeance) and systemic factors (like culture and social structures), so effective resolution requires addressing both levels.
2. Vengeance is one of the most difficult impediments because it makes disputants sacrifice their own advantage to punish the other, often after a long escalation cycle.
3. Meta-disputes are disputes about how the conflict is being handled; they compound original conflicts and are best prevented through open, cooperative communication.
4. Mistrust is the engine that drives conflict escalation by creating suspicion and defensive tactics that make cooperation nearly impossible.
5. When disputants have vastly different perceptions of reality, external help (like a mediator) is usually required because each side honestly believes their view is correct.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. What are the four main categories of reasons why people seek vengeance in a conflict?
2. How do meta-disputes differ from the original conflict, and what is the best way to deal with them?
3. Why is mistrust described as the "engine driving conflict escalation"?
4. What makes "vastly different perceptions of reality" such a difficult impediment to overcome without help?
5. List the first five of the fourteen impediments to resolving interpersonal conflict mentioned in this lecture.

📘 Lecture 21 — Assessing the Impediments to Resolving the Conflict II

📖 Overview: This lecture continues the examination of barriers that prevent cooperative settlement of interpersonal conflicts. It covers the remaining eleven impediments from the comprehensive list, explaining how each one operates and what strategies can be used to overcome them. Understanding these impediments is critical for effective conflict diagnosis and resolution.

🗂️ Topics Covered

The lecture covers eleven impediments to conflict resolution: over-commitment and entrapment, lack of ripeness, jackpot syndrome, loss aversion, linkage, conflicts of interest among team members, excluded stakeholders, disempowered disputant, unpleasant disputant, and competitive culture or subculture. Each impediment is explained with its definition, characteristics, and practical strategies for addressing it, concluding with the importance of interest analysis in identifying active impediments.

📝 Lecture Summary

Summary impediments to cooperative settlement of interpersonal conflict

The lecture begins with a comprehensive summary table of all fourteen impediments, which were introduced across Lecture 20 and Lecture 21. The table provides each impediment's explanation and a concrete example.

🔑 Definition — Over-commitment and entrapment: A disputant’s team commits so much time, resource, or psychological energy to a competitive position that they feel that to settle would be a waste or would create intolerable loss of face. 📌 Example: After committing $50,000 to preparing for trial, a plaintiff refuses an eleventh-hour offer to settle for an amount the plaintiff originally felt would be in his best interests.

🔑 Definition — Jackpot syndrome: One of the parties is willing to take a huge risk that he or she will lose for the opportunity to obtain a huge recovery. 📌 Example: A plaintiff sues for $10 million and refuses to settle, despite her attorney’s warning that she’s unlikely to beat the defendant’s latest offer.

🔑 Definition — Loss aversion: A disputant would rather gamble on a likely huge loss than pay out a smaller loss now. 📌 Example: A defendant, faced with an offer of settlement if he pays $2,500, prefers to try the case although his lawyer warns that he’s very likely to lose more than that.

🔑 Definition — Linkages: Settling this case will affect other situations in unpredictable or damaging ways. 📌 Example: A prosecutor refuses to accept a plea-bargain offer from a defendant accused of accounting fraud – even though the evidence in the case is weak – because of the slap-on-the-wrist message that might be sent to others with similar cases pending.

🔑 Definition — Excluded stakeholders: One of the important stakeholders in the conflict is left out of the negotiations and therefore sabotages efforts to complete a settlement. 📌 Example: During negotiations over custodial arrangements for a teenager, parental efforts to institute visitation arrangements fall apart when the teenager refuses to go to the mother’s house as specified in the agreement.

💡 Why this matters: The table provides a quick-reference diagnostic tool for conflict managers to identify which impediments may be active in any given dispute.

Over-commitment and entrapment

Over-commitment occurs when a disputant pours so much time, money, and energy into preparing for a battle that it is seemingly wasteful to back out of the project. The result is that the disputants feel trapped. Over-commitment is a toxic combination of inattention and fear of losing face. It is insidious — it happens inch by inch, creating entrapment by degrees. The best ways to combat entrapment are to make disputants attentive to the process of commitment and to avoid the loss of face issue that comes with it.

Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim (1994, 114-16) recommended four tactics designed to avoid over-commitment and entrapment:

1. Before entering into a negotiation, it helps to set some boundaries on how much the disputant will lay on the line.
2. During the negotiation, one can schedule "points of decision", at which the decision to stay involved is periodically reevaluated.
3. Attention should be paid, during analysis of whether to continue committing resources to a conflict, on the costs, non-monetary and monetary, of continuing the conflict.
4. It is very useful to build in ways to save face wherever possible. As entrapment builds, the participants continue to persist in the dispute to avoid loss of face.

Lack of Ripeness

Resolving a conflict is perceived as costly, difficult, and unpleasant. Many times, disputants won't confront the work needed to resolve a conflict until they find no alternative. This situation of conflict is called ripeness.

In legal disputing, ripeness is often created by the proximity of the trial. A trial usually has many unexpected twists and turns; it is expensive, time consuming, and emotionally disturbing.

Jackpot Syndrome

The Jackpot Syndrome, identified by prominent law professors Frank Sander and Stephen Goldberg (Sander & Goldberg 1994), involves apparently irrational behavior by a disputant who is risk-tolerant. Disputants afflicted with this syndrome believe that they have a chance of "winning big" if they hold out and refuse to settle. The irrationality comes because their chances of actually getting the big payoff are miniscule.

Key characteristics:

• Apparently irrational behavior by a disputant who is risk-tolerant
• Believe in a chance of winning big
• Need to be educated: jackpot syndrome is unrealistic
• Differing views about reality and expecting a chance to become rich or famous

Loss Aversion

Loss aversion is the propensity of many people to prefer to gamble on an uncertain outcome rather than to take on a certain but manageable loss. Loss aversion is the complement of Jackpot Syndrome — it involves people who would rather gamble, knowing they have a good chance of losing, than give up a sure thing of lesser value.

Linkage

A linkages problem (Sander & Goldberg 1994) occurs when the conflict under consideration is interlinked with other conflicts and other parties. The implications of settlement may be hard to clarify or may overwhelm the stakes in the current conflict. It may seem safer just to avoid settlement altogether. Linkages are a reality of many interpersonal conflicts, and an effective conflict diagnostician deals with linkages by performing detailed interest analyses to determine the nature of each interdependent relationship affecting the conflict.

💡 Why this matters: Interest analysis is necessary to understand the linked conflicts or parties. Being unaware about underlying interests of disputants, agents, and constituents will be harmful in conflict management.

Conflicts of interest among team members

Non-disputants can put a variety of barriers in the way of conflict resolution. Constituent agents and other influential parties can all impede the otherwise effective work of disputants. Conflicts of interest can sometimes be treated as separate interpersonal conflicts, subject to creative resolution. When advocates and agents have clear conflicts of interests with their disputants, sometimes they must withdraw from representing the disputants to prevent the conflict of interest from doing harm to those they ostensibly represent.

Excluded Stakeholder

Another group of people who frequently impede the smooth resolution of a conflict are those who are not at the negotiation table but feel they should be. In a complex conflict, sometimes the disputants are difficult to identify. There may be a number of advocacy groups, each of which claims to be an interested party. Or, within a single group of disputants, there may be conflict over who should be physically performing the negotiation of the conflict.

Any individual who feels a need to contribute to the resolution of a conflict, but who isn't invited to do so, is likely to feel slighted about the lack of consideration. This psychological sting typically prompts the person who has been left out to dislike any settlement being considered (in a phenomenon closely related to reactive devaluation), and this person will often seek to sabotage the settlement process.

💡 Why this matters: At times, unimaginable forces or interests could impede resolution of conflicts. They could duly become part of negotiation. For example, an adult ward (child) may like to sit on the negotiation table on property dispute.

Disempowered Disputant

A disempowered disputant is a disputant who feels he or she has insufficient power in the relationship with the other disputant. For example, one brother or partner is active while other is passive or a sleeping partner. A disempowered disputant fears coming to agreement because he or she is afraid to be taken advantage of and doesn't know how to protect him- or herself. Often, the disempowered disputant cannot assess the utility of a proposed settlement because he or she lacks essential knowledge. A disempowered disputant is very likely to dig his or her heels into the sand and become paralyzed.

A seeming paradox is that a very powerful disputant in negotiation with a much disempowered disputant often benefits from conferring power on the latter. A conflict diagnostician who finds a disempowered disputant impeding settlement should look at ways that the disputant can be empowered.

Unpleasant Disputant

Some disputants are so irritating that no one wants to please them. Their unpleasant personalities generate intense hostility in those who have to deal with them. They push conflicts into a competitive cycle by directly generating enmity between the participants. Helping the irritating person may feel psychologically intolerable to the other participants (contrient interdependence results). Sometimes, the problem is "goodness of fit" — a disputant is only unpleasant to a single other disputant — but sometimes the unpleasant disputant is directed almost universally as impossible to work with.

Bossy attitude, unpleasant face, body, or outlook may also be the impediments. The solution may be to create distance between disputants.

Competitive culture or sub-culture

A competitive culture or subculture breeds competitive conflict escalation in numerous ways. Alternative ways of behaving are misunderstood, decried, or ridiculed. Efforts to create a cooperation cycle are met with efforts to exploit the opening thus created. It is difficult to deal with conflict in such an environment without retreating to the self-protective illusion of competition. The most common competitive subculture is the legal subculture. Lawyers are inculcated in the ways of competitive conflict resolution.

Trying to establish a cooperative relationship within a competitive culture or subculture involves one of two approaches:

1. Creating enough incentive for the other disputant to break cultural traditions
2. Moving the site of the conflict out of the competitive setting

Both of these approaches are used for legal disputes.

Summary

The importance of fourteen impediments to resolve conflict may have been known to you by now. If you can identify the active impediments by doing interest analysis, you will be able to resolve conflict easily.

⭐ Key Takeaways

The fourteen impediments to cooperative conflict resolution fall into psychological, structural, and cultural categories, each requiring specific diagnostic and intervention strategies. Over-commitment and entrapment can be prevented by setting boundaries, scheduling decision points, analyzing costs, and creating face-saving mechanisms. Jackpot syndrome and loss aversion represent opposite risk-taking behaviors — one chasing unlikely big wins, the other preferring uncertain gambling over certain losses — both requiring education and reality testing. Linkage problems demand detailed interest analysis to understand interconnected relationships, while excluded stakeholders and disempowered disputants often need to be brought into the process or empowered for settlement to succeed. The most critical skill for a conflict manager is performing thorough interest analysis to identify which impediments are actively blocking resolution in any given dispute.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. What are the four tactics recommended by Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim (1994) to avoid over-commitment and entrapment?
2. How does "lack of ripeness" typically become resolved in legal disputing, and what role does the proximity of trial play?
3. What is the fundamental difference between Jackpot Syndrome and Loss Aversion in terms of disputant psychology?
4. Why would a powerful disputant benefit from conferring power on a disempowered disputant during negotiations?
5. What two approaches can be used to establish cooperative relationships within a competitive culture or subculture?

📘 Lecture 22 — Assessing the Negotiating Style I

📖 Overview: This lecture introduces negotiation as a key method of conflict management and examines how different negotiation styles emerge depending on the conflict and the disputants. It critiques Deutsch’s theory of cooperation and competition for being incomplete and presents the dual concern model with five distinct negotiation styles, each symbolized by an animal to illustrate when and how each style is used.

🗂️ Topics Covered

The lecture begins by defining negotiation and its role in alternative dispute resolution. It then critiques Deutsch’s model of cooperation and competition, explaining why it fails to fully capture behavior in conflict. The core focus is the dual concern model, which outlines five negotiation styles: avoiding, dominating, obliging, integrating, and compromising. Each style is explained with its level of concern for self and other, a symbolic animal, and examples of when it is appropriately applied.

📝 Lecture Summary

Introduction

Conflict is resolved through various methods, including arbitration, mediation, adjudication, and negotiation. This lecture focuses on understanding negotiation. The choice of negotiation style depends on the nature of the conflict and the disputants. The main points of discussion include: why Deutsch’s theory is incomplete, how to cooperate without being taken advantage of, the five negotiation styles, and the dual concern model.

Quotations

The lecture begins with three relevant quotations:

• John F. Kennedy: "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."
• Adnan Khasoggi: "Making a billion dollars on a new deal is not difficult for me. Making it in a way that gives me satisfaction is the real challenge."
• G. K. Chesterton: "Compromise used to mean that half a loaf was better than no bread. Among modern statesmen it really seems to mean that half a loaf is better than a whole loaf."

Negotiation

Negotiation is one of three primary methods of alternative dispute resolution. It is a dialogue, discussion, or written exchange aimed at resolving a dispute or consummating a transaction. Virtually all cooperative conflicts are resolved through discussion and negotiation.

🔑 Definition — Negotiation: A dialogue, discussion, or written exchange aimed at resolving a dispute or consummating a transaction.

Negotiation Style

A negotiation style is a strategy, not a tactic. Choose a negotiation style that is suitable for the conflict you are dealing with. Most people have biases about choosing different styles of negotiation according to their own strengths and weaknesses.

🔑 Definition — Negotiation Style: A strategy, not a tactic, chosen based on the conflict and the disputants.

Deutch’s Model

According to Deutsch’s model, conflict is either cooperative or competitive. This approach is advantageous because it shows the course of conflict rather than the behaviors of individual disputants or agents. However, it fails because:

1. It does not describe the self-perception of disputants, which is very important.
2. Cooperation and competition are cyclical in nature, and Deutsch’s model refers to conflict, not the positions of individual disputants.
3. According to this model, there is only one form of cooperation. Actually, there could be different forms of cooperative strategies to resolve conflict. For example, a ‘pushover’ cooperation strategy makes the other disputant cooperate forcefully, whereas a joint problem solving strategy entails looking after the interests of the other party.

The model illustrates that cooperation involves high concern for other, while competition involves high concern for self.

Dual Concern Model

The dual concern model identifies five negotiation styles based on levels of concern for self and concern for other:

1. Avoiding style: Low concern for both self and other.
2. Dominating (or competing) style: High concern for self and low concern for other.
3. Obliging (or accommodating) style: Low concern for self and high concern for other.
4. Integrating (or collaborating or problem-solving) style: High concern for both self and other.
5. Compromising style: Moderate concern for both self and other.

🔑 Definition — Pareto-efficiency: The quality of a settlement agreement or other social arrangement to maximize overall value to the participants by allocating specific resources to those who value them most.

Avoiding Style

The avoiding style represents a low level of concern for both self and other. A turtle is a symbol for this style because it can avoid everything by pulling its head and legs into its shell. A turtle also chooses other styles at times; it does not always stay in its shell, as it would miss out on everything from eating to swimming.

Dominating or Competition Style

The dominating or competition style represents a high level of concern for self and a low level of concern for other. A lion can be a symbol of this style. The lion's roar helps it satisfy its interests. For example, if the lion's family is hungry, the lion may use strength and its loud roar to get food. However, the lion can also choose compromising or accommodating styles when playing or resting with a lion cub.

Obliging or Accommodating Style

The obliging or accommodating style represents a low level of concern for self and a high level of concern for other. A chameleon is a symbol because it changes its color to match its environment. Although the chameleon may always change its color, it may choose other styles when hunting, caring for young, or hiding from enemies.

Integrating or Cooperative Style

The integrating or cooperative style represents a high level of concern for both self and other. A dolphin usually chooses this cooperative problem-solving style. Dolphins use whistles and clicks to communicate to catch food cooperatively and to summon help. For example, when a dolphin is sick or injured, other dolphins will help it to the surface to breathe. However, if a dolphin has a baby and a shark is nearby, it will choose a competitive style to deal with the shark, as continuing cooperation would endanger the baby.

Compromising Style

The compromising style represents a moderate level of concern for both self and other. A zebra is a symbol because its unique stripes suggest it "split the difference" between black and white. However, a zebra may choose cooperative or competitive styles depending on the situation.

⭐ Key Takeaways

A student must remember that negotiation is a primary method of alternative dispute resolution, and the choice of negotiation style is a strategic decision based on the conflict. Deutsch’s model is limited because it only sees cooperation and competition as binary and fails to account for individual self-perception, cyclical behavior, and multiple forms of cooperation. The dual concern model provides a more complete framework, categorizing five styles based on concern for self and concern for other. Each style—avoiding, dominating, obliging, integrating, and compromising—has an animal symbol and is appropriate only in specific situations, meaning no single style is always correct.

🧠 Quick Revision Questions

1. What are the three main reasons Deutsch’s model of cooperation and competition is considered incomplete?
2. According to the dual concern model, what are the five negotiation styles and what levels of concern for self and other does each represent?
3. Which animal symbolizes the integrating or cooperative style, and what is a specific example of when this dolphin might switch to a competitive style?
4. What is the definition of Pareto-efficiency in the context of negotiation?
5. Why is a negotiation style considered a "strategy, not a tactic"?