Conflict and Peace Module 28 29 Conflict Incompatibility

Conflict and Peace Module 28 & 29

Conflict Incompatibility of actions or goals. Name groups in conflict at the moment:

Social Dilemmas When choices that are individually rewarding become collectively punishing. Experimental Studies Prisoner’s Dilemma Tragedy of the Commons What are today’s “commons” or shared resources?

Perpetuating Social Dilemmas FAE: “I was protecting myself, they were selfish. ” Cognitive “$2 dissonance a day is good money if you live in India…” Self-serving In interests non-zero-sum games (ones where there doesn’t have to be a loser) “I’ll just pollute a little…”

Consequences Mistrust Retaliation followed by escalation Extinction/destruction/overuse/ etc.

Ways to Induce Cooperation Rules and Regulations Reducing group size Face-to-face communication Change payoffs to reward cooperation and punish exploitation. Appeal to social responsibility norms.

Sources of Conflict

Robber’s Cave Field Experiment (1954) Muzafer Sherif’s study of 11 -12 year old boys at summer camp. Randomly assigned boys to two groups: Phase 1: bonding and group identification (Rattlers and Eagles) Phase 2: competition between the groups Phase 3: peace-making through cooperation on shared goals (e. g. , find a leak and fix a truck)

1. Competition Realistic Group Conflict Theory: competition over resources or win/lose situations provokes hostility. Groups behave more competitively than individuals in such situations.

2. Perceived Injustice Those who are exploited may justify their own inferior status or they may demand compensation or retaliate.

#3 Misperception Self-serving Negative Both bias, FAE, polarization, ingroup bias, etc. Mirror-Image Perception: tend to be blind to their own biases Both exaggerate their perceived differences Both tend to believe the “evil-leader-good people” illusion.

Shifting Perceptions As competition and conflict wax an wane, perceptions shift…foe to friend (and back again) Japan & US Germany & US Iraq & US Afghanistan & US

Small Group Activity Look at current events headlines and find a source of conflict between 2 “groups”. Identify the major source(s) of the conflict. Identify at least 2 social psychological explanations for the continuation of the conflict.

Four Cs of Peacemaking Module 28

#1: Contact Equal status is key. Emotional ties (friendship) reduces conflict but prejudice often keeps group members at a selfimposed distance. Contact isn’t enough in cases of entrenched hostility/hatred or perceived threat.

#2 Cooperation Superordinate goals and cooperative learning. Unity under common threat Acts of war (9/11) bring groups together under a national, ethnic, or religious identity (at least for a while). Muslims united with Jews to fix vandalized graves

#3 Communication Bargaining: direct negotiation Mediation: adding a trusted 3 rd party Integrative solutions are the best: both parties get what they need by creative solutions. Arbitration: imposed settlements.

Communication Style Open and direct is best. Listing goals or problems provides opportunities to see common ground. Trust Empathy and perspective-taking 3 rd party negotiators can help with all these and can offer solutions that might otherwise be “reactively devalued” if offered by the other party.

#4 Conciliation Reciprocal de-escalation: Firm, Fair and Friendly GRIT: graduated and reciprocated initiatives in tension reduction. One side publically announces its intention to be conciliatory and initiates a small act of conciliation. The other group is invited to reciprocate. Hostility is matched, but not over-responded to. Conciliatory acts are diverse, verifiable but do not jeopardize retaliatory capability. Closing a military base, sending aid, lifting sanctions, etc.