- For other types of conflict, see conflict (disambiguation).
Conflict refers to some form of friction, or disputes that arise in a group when the beliefs or actions of one or more group members are rejected or unacceptable by one or more members of another group. Conflicts can arise between members of the same group, known as intragroup conflicts, or may occur between members of two or more groups, and involve violence, interpersonal dispute conflicts. Conflict in groups often follow certain courses. Routine group interactions first interrupted by initial conflict , often caused by disagreements, disagreements among members, or resource scarcity. At this point, the group is no longer united, and can be divided into coalitions. This conflict escalation period in some cases gives way to the conflict resolution phase, after which the group can finally return to regular group interaction
Video Conflict (process)
Definition
M.Ajit notes that none of the definitions of conflict are universally accepted. He notes that one conflicting issue is whether the conflict is a situation or type of behavior.
Citing the review of the definition of organizational conflict in 1990 by Robert A. Baron, Rakhim noted the following common elements in the definition of conflict:
- there is an opposite interest recognized between the parties in a zero-sum situation;
- there must be conviction on each side that the other party acts or will act against them;
- This belief may be justified by the action taken;
- conflict is a process, evolving from their past interactions;
Based on that, the definition of conflict proposed by Rakhim is "an interactive process manifested in discrepancies, disputes or dissonances within or between social entities." Rakhim also noted that conflicts may be confined to one individual, in conflict within himself (intrapersonal conflict).
To take the other definition of conflict, Michael Nicholson defines it as an activity that occurs when conscious beings (individuals or groups) want to act inconsistently about their wants, needs, or obligations. Conflict is an escalation of discord, which is a common prerequisite, and characterized by conflict behavior, in which creatures are actively trying to destroy each other. Rakhim lists several manifestations of conflict behavior, beginning with disagreements, and followed by verbal abuse and interference.
Conflict can occur between individuals, groups, and organizations; examples include arguments between individuals, labor strikes, competitive sports, or armed conflict.
Maps Conflict (process)
Role of emotion in intergroup relations
The key players in inter-group and conflict relationships are the collective sentiments that one's group (group) has towards another group (outside the group). These group emotions are usually negative, and range in intensity from feelings of discomfort when interacting with other members of a particular group to the fullest in hatred for other groups and members. For example, in the Fischer organization's research at the University of Oxford, inter-group conflict was so 'heated' that it became mutually destructive and stubborn, resulting in organizational collapse.
Group-directed emotions can be expressed both verbally and non-verbally, and according to stereotyped content models, defined by two dimensions: perceived warmth (How friendly and sincere are the other groups?) And other group competencies (How skilled are the other groups? ). Depending on the level of warmth and perceived competence, the stereotype content model predicts four basic emotions that can be directed out of the group (Forsyth, 2006).
- Envy - Out-group outcomes are considered to have high competence, but low warmth (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2007). Envy groups are usually jealous of the symbolic and real achievements of other groups and see the group as a competitor (Forsyth, 2006).
- Contempt - Out-group is considered low in both competence and warmth (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2007). According to Forsyth, contempt is one of the most frequent group emotions. In this situation, the outsiders are responsible for their own failures. Members in the group also believe that their conflict with outside groups can not be resolved (Forsyth, 2006).
- Poor - Out-group that is believed by a group in high in warmth but low in pity competence (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2007). Usually the pitied groups are inferior to the inner group, and are not believed to be responsible for their failure (Forsyth, 2006).
- Admiration - Admiration occurs when outsiders are highly regarded in both warmth and competence, but admiration is rare because these two conditions are rarely met (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2007). Outwardly admired groups are considered really worthy of achievement. Admiration is considered most likely to arise when a group member can feel proud of the achievement of an outside group, and when out-of-group achievement does not disrupt the inner group (Forsyth, 2006).
Type
Conflict is rarely seen as constructive; however, in certain contexts (such as competition in sports), moderate levels of conflict can be seen as mutually beneficial, facilitating understanding, tolerance, learning, and effectiveness. Sophia Jowett distinguishes between content conflicts, in which individuals disagree about how to deal with certain issues, and relational conflicts, in which individuals disagree about each other, noting that content conflicts can be useful, increasing motivation and stimulating discussion, while relational conflicts are degrading performance , loyalty, satisfaction, and commitment, and cause the individual to become irritable, negative and suspicious. Irving Janis proposed that conflict be useful in groups and committees to avoid "group thinking" mistakes.
Jehn and Mannix have proposed the division of conflict into three types: relationships, tasks, and processes. Relationship conflict is derived from interpersonal mismatch; task conflicts related to disputes in views and opinions about a particular task, and the conflict process refers to disagreement with the group's approach to its task, method, and group process. They note that despite the dangerous conflict and process conflict conflicts, task conflicts are found to be beneficial because they encourage diversity of opinion, although care must be taken so that it does not develop into a process or relationship conflict.
Task conflict has been linked to two interrelated and profitable effects. The first is the quality of group decisions. Task conflicts encourage greater cognitive understanding of the issues under discussion. This leads to better decision-making for groups that use task conflict.
The second is the effective acceptance of group decisions. A task conflict can lead to increased satisfaction with group decisions and a desire to remain within the group.
Amason and Sapienza in turn distinguish between affective and cognitive conflict, in which cognitive conflict is task-oriented and arises from differences in perspective or judgment, and affective conflict is emotional and arises from personal differences and disputes.
Five beliefs that drive groups into conflict
Roy Eidelson and Judy Eidelson (2003) investigated some of the important roles that belief plays in triggering or limiting conflicts between groups. Based on the relevant literature review, the five domains of belief stand out as very important: Superiority, injustice, vulnerability, distrust and helplessness.
1. Superiority
- Individual core core beliefs: This core belief revolves around one's persisting belief that he is better than others in an important way. The group of attitudes usually associated with this belief includes a sense of privilege, worthiness, and rights.
- Group-level views: Many of these elements are also present in the world-view of group-level superiority. This worldview includes a shared belief about moral superiority, election, rights and special destiny. Several joint working committees of the American Psychological Association have identified "beliefs in the superiority of one group's cultural heritage (history, values, languages, traditions, arts and crafts, etc.) above others as characteristic of a phenomenon they call ethnocentric monoculturalism .
2. Injustice
- Individual core core beliefs: Persecution felt by certain people or by the world at large. This mindset can lead the individual to identify something unfair that is just unfortunate, and thus improperly involved in retaliation.
- World-level perspective: The injustice framework reflects a group's belief that it has significant and legitimate complaints against other groups. This mindset can mobilize a strong and violent collective uprising, especially since the general perception of injustice usually increases the identification and loyalty that individuals perceive to their group. Furthermore, the assessment of the persecution is very common across cultures because different cultures tend to have different definitions for what constitutes justice, and different norms for how it should be achieved.
3. Vulnerability
- Individual core core beliefs: The core of confidence in vulnerability revolves around a person's belief that he is constantly living in danger. Vulnerability involves a person's perception of himself or herself as a subject of internal or external hazards whose control is lacking, or insufficient to provide him with a sense of security.
- Group-level perspective: The important parallels for this individual-level core beliefs are present in the collective world view of vulnerability that once again appears to be widespread among ethnic groups. Concerns about the future are the most common causes of ethnic conflict and often produce violent shocks. A vulnerability framework is a disaster thought in which the worst case scenarios imagined by the group take inevitable logic inevitably.
4. Unbelief
- Individual core core beliefs: This core belief focuses on allegations of hostility and other people's evil intentions. The important role played by the issue of trust in individual psychological development has long been recognized. The hope that others will hurt, abuse, humiliate, cheat, lie, or take advantage usually involves the perception that deliberate harm or the result of an unreasonable and extreme negligence. People who consistently think worst of other people's intentions prevent actual collaborative relationships from developing.
- Group level views: As an extension of this individual-level core belief to a larger group. the view of the world of mistrust focuses specifically on the perception of outside groups and revolves around the belief that others are unreliable and have bad intentions towards the group within.
5. Powerlessness
- Individual core core beliefs: The belief that even carefully planned and executed actions will fail to produce the desired outcomes. In some cases, an individual may regard himself as lacking the necessary ability to achieve a goal. Regardless of the extent to which powerlessness is a matter of distorted perception or objective reality, this core belief tends to perpetuate itself because it diminishes motivation.
- World-level perspective: The powerlessness of the worldview represents the collective mindset of helplessness and dependability. The extent to which a group feels itself powerless reflects judgments not only of its ability, but also whether the environment is rich or poor in the opportunities for group progress.
Escalation conflict
Although the parties involved may hope to reach a solution to their dispute quickly, psychological and interpersonal factors can thwart their efforts to control the conflict, and in this case, the escalation of the conflict occurs. A number of factors including increased commitment to one's position, the use of stronger influence tactics, and the formation of coalitions encourage the escalation of conflict.
Uncertainty and commitment
As conflicts increase, the doubts and uncertainties of group members are replaced by a strong commitment to their position. People rationalize their choice once they have them: they seek information that supports their views, reject information that sets their views aside, and become more rooted in their starting position (also see confirmation bias). In addition, people believe that once they commit to a position openly, they must obey it. Sometimes, they may realize their lack of vision, but they continue to defend those views and argue against their opponents just to save face. Finally, if the opponent argues too strongly, reactance can be arranged and group members become more committed to the position.
Perception and misperception
Individual reactions to conflict are shaped by their perception of the situation and the people in the situation. During the conflict, the opposite's conclusions about the strengths, attitudes, values, and personal qualities of each tend to be highly distorted.
Misattribution
During the conflict, people explain their opponents' actions in ways that make matters worse. The fundamental attributional error occurs when one assumes that the opponent's behavior is caused by a personal (dispositional) rather than a situational (environmental) factor. When the conflict continues for a time, the opponent may decide that the conflict is difficult to solve. People usually expect violent conflict to be extended, intense, and very difficult to resolve.
Motivation misconceptions
During conflict, opponents often become disbelieving with each other wondering whether their cooperative motivation is being replaced by a competitive one. This loss of trust makes it difficult to return to a cooperative relationship. People with competitive SVO are the most inaccurate in their perception of opponent's motivation. They often think that other people compete with them when in fact, there is no competition going on. Competitors are also more biased in their search for information that confirms their suspicions that others are competing with them. They also tend to deliberately misrepresent their intentions, sometimes claiming to be more cooperatively oriented than they really are.
Malicious tactics and tactics
People use soft tactics at the beginning of the conflict, but when it increases, tactics become stronger and harder. To demonstrate this phenomenon, Mikolic, Parker, and Pruitt (1997) simulate a conflict situation by creating a "birthday card factory" with a small paid research participant for each card they produce using paper, colored markers, and ribbons. The work went well until the confederation of researchers posing as other participants began to stock up production materials. Initially, group members tried to solve the problem with statements and requests. When these methods fail, they turn to demands and complaints, and then to threats, abuse, and anger.
Although harsh tactics may overwhelm the opponent, they often intensify the conflict. Morton Deutsch and Robert Krauss (1960) used a truck game experiment to show that the capacity to threaten others intensified the conflict. They also point out that building communication links does not always help resolve disputes. If either party threatens the other party, the threatened party will get the best price if it can not respond with retaliation. But a very strong opponent, learns to avoid using force if the fear of retaliation is high.
Reciprocity and spiral conflict up
In many cases, the upward spiral of conflicts is sustained by the norm of reciprocity: if one group or person criticizes another, the criticized person or group feels justified in doing the same. In conflict situations, the opponent often follows a roughly reciprocal norm, that is, they give too much (too much) or undermatching in return. At a low level of conflict, opponents defeat their threats, while at high levels of conflict they underestimate their threats. Overmatching can serve as a powerful warning, while undermatching can be used to send conciliation messages.
Few and many
When conflicts erupt, group members use coalitions to shift the balance of power in their favor, and there is usually a multiparty conflict to reduce up to two blocks over time. Coalitions contribute to conflict because they attract more members of the group into chaos. Individuals in the coalition work not only to ensure their own results but also worsen the outcome of non-coalition members. Those who are excluded from the coalition react with hostilities and try to regain power by forming their own coalition. Thus, coalitions must be maintained through strategic bargaining and negotiation.
Irritation and anger
It is generally difficult for most people to stay calm and collect in conflict situations. However, the increase in negative emotions (ie anger) only exacerbates the initial conflict. Even when group members begin to discuss their positions calmly and impulsively, once they are committed to their position, emotional expression often replaces logical discussion. Anger is also contagious: when group members negotiate with an angry person, they become angry.
Conflict resolution
Nicholson noted that conflicts are resolved when inconsistencies between the wishes and actions of the parties are resolved. Negotiation is an important part of conflict resolution, and any design of a process that tries to incorporate positive conflict from scratch needs to be careful not to degenerate into negative types of conflict.
Mediation conflict
Conflict is a social process that is aggravated when each member of the group takes sides in the debate. Among the methods for resolving conflicts are mediation of disputes by members of a group that are not currently involved in the dispute. More specifically, a mediator is defined as a person who tries to resolve the conflict between two group members by intervening in this conflict. Simply put, the mediator may be regarded as an impartial guide to direct the disputing party through the process of developing a solution to the dispute (Forsyth, 2006).
Although the tendency is for group members not involved in disputes to remain uninvolved, in some cases, severe conflict intensity may increase to the point where mediation can not be avoided. Third party mediation of the conflict opens the way for communication between group members in conflict. This allows members to express their opinions and ask for clarification of the opinions of other members while the mediator acts as a form of protection against shame or "loss of face" that may be experienced by the disputing parties. This can be done by releasing a positive light on the reconciliation made during the mediation process. For example, if negotiated that two cashiers will rotate their weekend work, the mediator may indicate that now every worker gets a weekend weekend every two weeks (Forsyth, 2006).
The mediator may also offer assistance in purification solutions and make offers between members, adjust the time and location of the meeting so that they are mutually satisfying to both parties (Forsyth, 2006).
According to Forsyth (2006), there are three main mediation approaches: Inquisitorial procedures- Using this procedure, the mediator asks each party to dispute a series of questions, consider two sets of responses, and then select and apply compulsory solutions to members. Inquisitorial procedures are the most unpopular approach to mediation.
Arbitration - Here, mediation involves two disputing parties explaining their argument to the mediator, who creates solutions based on the argument presented. Arbitration is best for low intensity conflicts, but is the most preferred overall style of mediation.
Moot- A debated approach involves an open discussion between disputants and mediators about potential problems and solutions. In a debatable approach, mediators can not impose mandatory solutions. After arbitration, debated is the preferred style of mediation.
In practice, conflict resolution is often intertwined with day-to-day activities, such as within organizations, workplaces and institutions. Staff and residents in youth care settings, for example, establish daily affairs (meals, lessons, breaks, meetings, or other regular projects) with interpersonal disputes. [1]
See also
- Conflict theory
- Consensus decision making
- Peace and conflict studies
- Social conflict
- Sociology of peace, war, and social conflict
- Military conflict
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments