Deutsch’s theory of conflict resolution (1973, 2006a) is one of the most important and influential theoretical advances for the study of conflict of the last century. Based on his earlier work on cooperation and competition in groups (Deutsch, 1949a, 1949b), it specified the basic conditions and processes involved in constructive versus destructive conflict. However the original formulation of the theory assumed equal power and equal degrees of interdependence between the parties in conflict. These assumptions constrain both the theoretical scope and practical implications of the theory. This research project will empirically validate and refine a new social-psychological model of the dynamics of power and conflict, thus extending Deutsch’s theory into situations of asymmetrical power and interdependence. It combines prior work on interdependence and social power and integrates them through the lens of dynamical systems theory, a new paradigm for the study of social conflict. A conceptual article of this model is currently under revise and resubmit at Personality and Social Psychology Review, and our first empirical article on the model has been submitted to Negotiation and Conflict Management Journal. Currently, we are planning and conducting 5 research studies on this model and have begun developing a mathematical model in order to work with it through computer simulations. We plan to begin cross-cultural work on the model next year.
The dynamics of seemingly unsolvable conflicts: Dynamical-systems research on intractable conflicts.
In September, 2006, Dr. Coleman began leading an international team of scholar-practitioners, with funding from the James S. McDonnell Foundation, to develop a theory of enduring conflicts from the perspective of complex systems. The project applies the principles and methods of dynamical systems theory to what is arguably the most complex and dynamic of all social phenomena: protracted social conflict. Such conflicts are quite common and undermine the security and well being of societies worldwide. The project is being conducted by a multidisciplinary research team consisting of 1) a specialist in the study of intractable conflict (Peter T. Coleman); 2) two social psychologists with expertise in the application of dynamical systems to cognitive, interpersonal, group, and societal phenomena (Andrzej Nowak and Robin Vallacher); 3) a physicist with expertise in formal descriptions and the modeling of system dynamics (Larry Liebovitch); and 4) a social anthropologist (and practitioner) who specializes in international conflict and genocide prevention (Andrea Bartoli). The grant was awarded to test, validate, and revise a theoretical framework of dynamical system theory from the results of case studies, laboratory experiments, and computer simulations. To date this project has resulted in 6 publications, 8 pending publications, and 15 conference presentations. In addition, we are currently conducting an extensive program of research assessing the dynamics of constructive and destructive processes (cognitive, affective, and behavioral attractor dynamics) in moral conflicts. This work will culminate in one dissertation and several articles. We are also currently editing a special issue of Peace and Conflict: The Journal of Peace Psychology, showcasing dynamical-systems theory applications to conflict research. We are also working with a dynamical progressive-scenario methodology (Bui-Wrzosinska, 2005) to explore splitting parameters that lead to more destructive versus constructive dynamics in conflicts of a more intractable nature.
Understanding the pervasive spread of malignant conflict: A Dynamical Systems Perspective.
Traditionally, the destructiveness of long-term conflicts have been assessed either by measuring their intensity in quantitative terms, which typically includes counting the number, types, and magnitude of bombing attacks, battles, fatalities, injuries, population displacement, etc. (e.g. Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research), their temporal scope or how long they persist (e.g. UPPSALA Conflict Data Program), or by assessing the direct consequences of conflicts, which entails the examination of the physical and psychological welfare of those caught up in the dynamics of conflict, and the damage to the social, political, economical, and educational infrastructure of the society (United Nations OCHA reports). However, in describing the basic nature of long-term intractable conflicts, Zartman (2005) concluded that “intractability is a dynamic, self-reinforcing condition; digging an ever-deepening hole for itself and feeding itself like a vortex” (p. 55). In other words, the longer violent conflicts persist, the more they spread into the fabric of societies, and therefore the longer they last. The observation that destructive conflicts have a tendency to spread and that this increase in their range prolongs and sustains their negative effects has been made by various conflict scholars (Rouhana & Bar-Tal, 1998; Kriesberg, 2005; Zartman, 2005; Gray, Coleman, Putnam, 2007; Wessels, 2007). However, despite decades of research dedicated to the study of protracted conflict dynamics, to date, little is known about the basic mechanisms which account for the spreading of conflict, or the conditions which make it more or less likely to occur. In fact, other than anecdotal accounts, there has been little or no scholarship directly conceptualizing and investigating the conditions and processes involved in conflicts becoming more pervasive. This project will attempt to address this gap in the literature.
The fundamentals of sustainable peace: Modeling the necessary and sufficient conditions and processes for sustainable peace in communities.
Decades of research has taught us a great deal about conflict, conflict escalation, stalemate and de-escalation. However, in contrast to the abundant research on conflict, relatively little research has focused directly on sustainable peace. There is often a basic assumption in conflict studies that a thorough understanding of the problem of destructive conflict will, by default, provide insight into conditions and processes which foster and sustain peace. This assumption, however, has been found by researchers to be erroneous (see Gottman, Murray, Swanson, Tyson, Swanson, 2002; Losada, 1999; Losada & Heaphy, 2004). Although the lessening of openly destructive or violent conflict is likely a necessary condition for peace, there is no reason to believe it is a sufficient condition. In fact, psychological research on positive and negative evaluative processes and attributions have shown that, at times, positive processes (like peace) and negative processes (like conflict) function somewhat independently (Cacioppo & Berntson, 1994; Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1997; Deutsch, 1973; Gottman, et. al, 2002; Rudolph, Roesch, Greitemeyer, and Weiner, 2004), and may involve very different parameters, temporal scales, weighting, and dynamics.
Our first initiatives in this area will involve qualitative work with expert practitioners working with effective peace initiatives. This includes interviews and a working meeting. We plan to convene a session entitled: The Fundamentals of Sustainable Peace: A Practice-to-Theory Dialogue on Effective Systemic Peace Initiatives. We will bring together a small group of skilled practitioners who will each: 1) send out a short brief of an "effective" case that they have worked on (before the gathering) and then 2) make a presentation of their case at the meeting, with an emphasis on their sense of the necessary and/or sufficient conditions and processes at the core of such effective initiatives. Our Dynamical-Systems Team will be present (PhD students, etc.) for this 2-3 day meeting where the cases are presented and digested and then the basic theoretical insights are somehow summarized during the last day - with room for reaction and feedback from the practitioners. This will be grounded-theory development - with an emphasis on peace (fostering positive attractors), and an aim towards identifying the basic parameters for a dynamical-minimal model of peace.
Culture and conflict: Research on dynamic models of the effect of culture on collaboration and negotiation in the Middle East.
This project, funded as a Multiple University Research Initiative (MURI) through the US Army Research Institute (ARI), will develop basic theory to better understand constructive negotiation and collaboration processes in Middle Eastern cultures. Our project will examine how characteristics of the rules of engagement in conflict situations (number and type of rules) may be used to measure the complexity of cultural norms regarding conflict, and how this in turn may help predict the tendencies to employ constructive and destructive processes in conflict situations. Our work on this project will proceed in four phases. In phase one, literature from diverse disciplines will be searched and probed for concepts and models that provide insights into basic conflict rules and decision-making processes in conflicts across cultures. In phase two, a more specified theoretical model will be developed to describe the nature and influence of these rules systems on social interactions and outcomes of conflicts. This phase may involve qualitative research (interviews and focus groups) with individuals from different cultural contexts. This could involve the generation of decision-making trees with participants. In phase three, experiments will be conducted where we manipulate the number and type of rules involved in situations, to test and refine the model. Finally, in phase four, we will generate a dynamical-minimal (mathematical) model of rule-complexity in conflict, to visualize and explore its potential emergent qualities.
Research on promotion and prevention orientations in conflict.
This research investigates social conflict dynamics from the perspective of regulatory focus theory (cf. Higgins, 2000), a model of motivation and cognition that distinguishes between two modes of calculating the subjective value of personally-relevant experiences. In the promotion mode, people are especially sensitive to experiences that enhance positive outcomes, whether material (e.g., attaining money or resources) or psychological (e.g., gaining power or enhancing self-esteem) in nature. In the prevention mode, people are especially sensitive to experiences that undermine positive outcomes or increase the risk of negative outcomes. Thus, an action or a state of affairs can be valued to the extent that it promotes an advance in one’s well-being (promotion mode) or to the extent that it prevents an erosion of one’s current level of well-being or reduces the intensity of one’s negative outcomes (prevention mode). Thus, a day in which nothing bad happens might be viewed as unsatisfying from a promotion perspective, but as quite satisfying from a prevention perspective. To date, variation in regulatory focus has not been traced to the circumstances and forces at work in interpersonal or group-level conflict. We suggest that there are indeed plausible links between well-documented conflict-relevant factors and the differential salience of promotion versus prevention modes for calibrating one’s experience in relationships characterized by antagonism and conflict. If such links can be verified, this perspective may provide fresh insight into the genesis, maintenance, and resolution of otherwise diverse manifestations of conflict. In so doing, this research would go far toward disentangling the multitude of factors that have been shown to be linked to conflict (cf. Deutsch, Coleman, & Marcus, 2006) and reintegrating these diverse factors in a theoretically coherent manner. We currently are conducting our first set of studies in this area.
Applied Research
Difficult Conversations Laboratory and Clinic.
Conversations around topics such as the war in , the Israeli-Arab conflict, abortion rights and affirmative action tend to be divisive, emotionally difficult and have the potential to quickly move into a destructive path. Gaining systematic understanding of the basic dynamics differentiating constructive versus destructive approaches to difficult conversations is vital to both scholars and practitioners in the field of peace building. This project will be conducted in three phases. The first and second phases will serve to establish a laboratory to test and refine our understanding the nature of the underlying constructive and destructive dynamics in such conflicts. The third phase will allow us to begin to work more directly on practical applications, by establishing a clinic to work with leaders of schools, community-based organizations and non-governmental organizations struggling with difficult conflicts.
Conflict Feedback Mapping Project.
Based on our work applying complexity science to evolving conflicts, we are developing a tool for visualizing complex conflicts as they unfold overtime. It can be very useful to represent the dynamical-system of conflicts – in the form of a dynamic network – through a series of feedback loop analyses. analysis is useful for mapping positive and negative feedback processes that escalate, de-escalate, and stabilize destructive conflicts. This method not only captures the multiple sources and complex temporal dynamics of such systems, but can help identify central nodes and patterns that are unrecognizable by other means. We are currently working with a team from ’s Center for New Teaching and Learning to develop a web-based method for creating animated maps for conflict visualization and analysis.
Complex Negotiations Simulation.
We have co-designed a new pedagogy for teaching negotiation in a complex world. It was first conceptualized as a methodology for working with stakeholders attempting to comprehend and address chronic patterns of destructive conflict and violence in public schools. It has since been developed as a platform for teaching multi-stakeholder negotiations in various situations of protracted social conflict. The centerpiece of this teaching platform is a computer simulation of conflict attractors, which allows participants to visualize and work interactively with the dynamics of conflict as they unfold overtime.
Connecting the dots in public schools: An ecological systems approach to responding to conflict and injustice in local communities.
If we consider the problem of urban school violence today, we see complex interactions between poverty, lack of personal opportunity and responsibility, racism, alcohol and other drug use, gangs, inadequate gun control regulation, disinvestments in schools and after-school programs, ineffectual responses from teachers and school officials, family and media violence and poor social skills. We take an ecological approach to working with violence in school communities: working in partnership with other providers to offer a constellation of services to the school and its community. We use participatory action research (PAR) as a means of ensuring all stakeholder voices are heard and integrated and as a way to document progress as we move forward. We write collectively about these experiences to share our learning with other organizations.
Does it Work? Conflict Resolution Training Evaluation.
Negotiation training is a multi-million dollar industry that has become prominent in many fields. However, despite this growth, there has been little research to assess the effectiveness of such training. We have developed a new model for negotiation training evaluation that assesses pre-to-post training change at the individual level in conflict-related cognitions, attitudes, affect and behaviors; and at the systems level in conflict outcomes and climate. The instrument, the Conflict Competencies 360, is a time-delayed, multi-source feedback approach to assessment and professional development, which addresses many of the conceptual and methodological problems inherent in more common methods of training evaluation.